Manilyn Seguin Estrada v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 821/2026, [2026] HKCA 1803

On appeal from [2026] HKCFI 4211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 821 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 26 OF 2023)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.On 28 July 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Isaac Chan 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 last arrived in Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper on 4 January 2020.  She prematurely terminated her employment contract on 19 September 2020 and subsequently overstayed.  She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 2 December 2020 and lodged her non-refoulement claim on 11 December 2020.

3.Her claim was made on the basis that she would be harmed or killed by her former partner if she were to return to her home country because she has a new boyfriend in Hong Kong. 

4.By a Notice of Decision dated 23 September 2021, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 6 December 2022[2]. For a summary of the Board’s decision, see §12 of the judge’s decision.

The judge’s decision

5.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affidavit on 6 January 2023 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  Her leave application was dismissed by the judge on 28 July 2026.

Grounds of appeal

6.In her Notice of Appeal filed on 7 August 2026, the applicant stated the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  She 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significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay and relied on some outdated cases.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.

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

(1)  The judge’s decision was unreasonable;

(2)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director;

(3)  The judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director;

(4)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of torture claims but the judge reviewed the matter lightly;

(5)  The applicant’s problems are very severe in her home country and she has submitted all the proofs but the judge has not applied greater care and disappointed the applicant.  The judge did not analyse the claims properly;

(6)  The adjudicator has failed to give sufficient chance for the applicant to arrange for relevant evidence;

(7)  The Director had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay;

(8)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to evaluate and make finding as to whether there is a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in the applicant’s home country;

(9)  The adjudicator was irrational in failing to assess whether state protection existed in the applicant’s home country and misdirected himself as to the extended meaning of state protection;

(10)  The police in her country will not help her because she is not a political leader of the ruling party or an influential person of the state.  Her enemies are involved with the ruling government.  They can kill her at any time if they find her;

(11)  The political situation in her home country does not support her life safety at this moment. 

Analysis and disposition 

8.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.

9.The applicant’s grounds and submissions in this appeal are just bare assertions without evidence in support.  She has not adduced any evidence to refute the Board’s findings or to demonstrate that the judge’s decision was wrong.  We are not satisfied there was any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the entire process.

10.Therefore, we found that the appeal is devoid of merit and dismiss it accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person

[1]  [2026] HKCFI 4211

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

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000026_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf