UGOT REMICHELLE SUMAOANG AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 787/2025, [2026] HKCA 759

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2184 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 9 September 2025 (“the Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 10 October 2019 (“the Board’s 2019 Decision”)  which concerns the 1^st applicant (“A1”), and the Board’s decision dated 28 June 2024 (“the Board’s 2024 Decision”)  which concerns the 2^nd applicant (“A2”), the daughter of A1.  

2.  By way of a Summons and a supporting affirmation of A1 both filed on 19 January 2026, the applicants clarified that they wished to appeal against the Board’s 2024 Decision and hence the Judge’s dismissal of HCAL 2184/2024 only, and so the court gave direction accordingly on 28 January 2026.

BACKGROUND

3.  A1 is a national of the Philippines. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark named Mark for her unpaid loan, that her family would not accept her because she had converted to Islam, and that she would face discrimination in her predominantly Catholic local community.  A1’s own non-refoulement claim was refused by the Director of Immigration on 18 April 2019 on all applicable grounds and the appeal against it was dismissed by the Board on 10 October 2019, which was the subject of HCAL 3077/2019.

4.  A1 lodged a non-refoulement claim on A2’s behalf.  A2’s claim was also refused by the Director on 31 March 2022 on all applicable grounds and the appeal against it was rejected by the Board.  Details of the A2’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting A2’s appeal can be found in the Board’s 2024 Decision.

5.  The applicants’ applications for leave to apply for judicial review were refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

6.  By a notice of appeal filed on 23 September 2025, the applicants sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court in which it states :

“the ground of procedural impropriety, an error or misdirection in the law, without taking account psychological strain and threats.”

7.  In the applicants’ skeleton argument lodged on 20 March 2026, the decisions of the Board are disputed.

8.  However, the applicants did not indicate any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing their applications for leave to take out a judicial review.

9.  The appeal was heard on 16 April 2026.  A1 attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter with A2 being absent. A1 added that it would be difficult for the applicants to start a new life in the Philippines, and they had nowhere to stay.  She also added that A2 had just started her studies in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION

10.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, 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)).

11.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

12.  Regarding A2’s claim, it is necessary for the Court of Appeal to consider separately the position of A2 as she is a minor, who was not legally represented before the Board or in the Court of First Instance.  The proper approach to deal with children’s non-refoulement claims has been established by the Court of Appeal in Fabio  Arlyn Timogan v Evan Ruth Esq, Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2020] HKCA 971, and then in Re Jasvir Singh [2021] HKCA 53.

13.  In the present case, the Judge considered the applicants’ claims separately. He confirmed that the Board had given separate consideration to A2’s case as a minor without legal representation, and found no child-specific issues which may have been overlooked. Having considered the papers before us especially the Judge’s decision, we agree with it.

14.  The matters set out in the applicants’ notice of appeal and skeleton argument failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge.  There is no basis for this Court to interfere with the Judge’s refusal of leave.

DISPOSITION

15.  The applicants’ appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.