Collados Emilie Cocson v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
CACV 812 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1805 On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4146 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 812 OF 2026 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 866 OF 2023) ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
_____________________ J U D G M E N T _____________________ Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): Background 1.On 31 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Val Chow refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement claim[1]. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal against the said decision on 6 August 2026. 2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines. In around July 2008, she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper. Her employment contract was prematurely terminated in 2011 and she subsequently overstayed. In about January 2022, she lodged her non-refoulment claim on the basis that, if she were to return to her home country, she would be harmed or killed by the creditors. 3.By a Notice of Decision dated 25 May 2022, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim. Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 24 May 2023[2]. For key findings of the Board’s decision, see §§10 to 11 of the decision of the judge. The judge’s decision 4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 5 June 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. Her leave application was dismissed by the judge on 31 July 2026. Grounds of appeal 5.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 6 August 2026, the applicant stated that she is pleading to review the decisions of the Director and the Board as they are unreasonable. 6.In her written submissions, she reiterated the problem she faced in her home country, the procedural history of her claim and the above ground of appeal. Analysis and disposition 7.The general principles regarding an appeal in a non‑refoulement case have been set out comprehensively by the Court of Appeal in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 8.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. It is not the role of the appeal court to examine the decision of the Board afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. 9.The applicant did not put forward any grounds to challenge the decision of the judge. The ground she put forward against the decisions of the Director and the Board is lacking in particulars and evidence in support. The judge has provided his reasons for rejecting the leave application and we consider his decision well founded. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court or was otherwise plainly wrong. 10.We find the appeal devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.
The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person [2] The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink: |
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error