Ile Honey Kim Laquio v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 816 /2026, [2026] HKCA 1809

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 816 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1240 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 7 August 2026.

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper.  She did not leave Hong Kong after her new domestic helper visa application was refused, and subsequently overstayed.  She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 13 June 2022 and lodged a non-refoulement claim on 3 August 2022.  Her claim was made on the basis that she would be seriously harmed by her former boyfriend who is a member of a terrorist group if she were to return to her home country.

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 September 2022, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 19 June 2023[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 20 July 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.The applicant stated the following grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal filed on 7 August 2026:

(1)  The applicant will face hardship if she is to return to her home country;

(2)  The Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay and relied on some outdated cases.  The lack of credible source of information resulted in the making of groundless speculations.

6.Her further contentions in her written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of torture claims but the Board failed to scrutinise and adopted a general practice of not to question or find fault with the Director’s decision;

(2)  The decision maker is under a duty to act fairly.

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.The applicant’s grounds and submissions are just bare assertions which are not supported by evidence and/or sufficient particulars.  The Board and the judge had provided detailed reasons for their respective decisions and their decisions are well founded.  The applicant failed to adduce any evidence to refute the findings of the Board or the decision of the judge that none of her proposed grounds for judicial review are reasonably arguable.  Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person, absent

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4147

[2]  The Board’s decision can be accessed via the following hyperlink:

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL001240_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf