|
CACV 1139/2025, [2026] HKCA 1248
On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1139 OF 2025
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1339 OF 2020)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
CARBOLIDO SHEMMA PALMA
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Mimmie ChanJ in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
4 August 2026 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy
High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 26 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave
to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement
Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 June 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the
Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the
Director”) dated 20 March 2020.
2. The Applicant claims that, if refouled, she would at risk of
harm from her husband (who wanted her to go back to the Philippines), from her relatives (who believed that she
did not remit money home for her daughter), and from a creditor (because she failed to fully repay a loan that
she had borrowed for a farm operated by her husband)[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board
and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the
Board’s Decision referred to by the Judge in her decision (see §1 of the CALL-1 Form). We do not propose
to repeat them here.
3. The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave
application are set out at §§5-8 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant did not
provide any grounds for her intended challenge against the Board’s Decision, and her intended judicial review of
the Board’s Decision was not reasonably arguable.
THIS APPEAL
4. In her Notice of Appeal filed on 3 December 2025, the
Applicant states the following:
“[T]he Applicant will face hardship if [she] is to return back to [her] home country and that
the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially
recognized, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the
dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless
speculations.” [sic]
5. The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in
support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 June
2026. Accordingly, she is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of her appeal and
elected to have her appeal disposed of on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider
that it is appropriate to deal with the Applicant’s appeal on paper without an oral hearing.
DISCUSSION
6. In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial
review in a non-refoulement case, 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. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh
as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524,at §14(6)).
7. Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin
information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the
province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are
errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, at §13. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or
irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.
8. The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal
against the Order.
9. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Mimmie Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
[1] See §27 of the Board’s Decision.
|