Perez Mailalinda Bulandres v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 634/2025, [2026] HKCA 1872

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 634 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3123 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

Background

1.This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 14 August 2025[1] refusing 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.  As the applicant was removed from Hong Kong in November 2025, we will deal with this appeal on paper.

2.The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her former boss or her husband. 

Decisions of the Director and the Board

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 20 February 2018, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  Her appeal was dismissed by the Board on 17 October 2019[2].

The judge’s decision

4.The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 22 October 2019 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board.  Her application was dismissed by the judge on 14 August 2025.

Grounds of appeal

5.In the notice of appeal filed on 21 August 2025, the applicant only stated that she is not satisfied with the order, without putting forward any specific grounds of appeal.

Legal principles

6.The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14. 

Analysis and disposition

7.The applicant did not provide any viable ground against the judge’s decision.  She 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.

8.The appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person