|
HCAL 1488/2022
[2026] HKCFI 4171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1488 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Atienza Chona Marasigan |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 November 2022 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision refusing her non-refoulement claim as mentioned below.
2. The applicant was absent at the hearing on 15 July 2026. I shall deal with her application on the papers.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She is an illegal immigrant. She lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her boyfriend because she decided to leave him.
4. Details of her claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2022/HCAL001488_2022_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
6. By way of Notice of Decision dated 28 March 2018 (“Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 12 July 2022, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her. The applicant had given evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that there was no evidence to support her claim [36]; that there was no evidence that her boyfriend intended to harm or kill her as it was a personal dispute between themselves, and her fear of future risk is only her speculation [37]-[39]; that there was no evidence that the state was involved [61]; that state protection will be available if she returns to the Philippines [64]; and that internal relocation is also viable [94].
9. For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 13 December 2022 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. The applicant has not raised any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision in her affidavit. She attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to her affidavit.
DISCUSSION
12. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decisions should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
14. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
15. The applicant fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
16. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
Dated the 29th day of July 2026
| |
(Allen LEE)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 29/7/2026
Atienza Chona Marasigan
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 29/7/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 11281(R)
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCL/3757/16 (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|