PRADO MOISES ESTONILO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 684/2025, [2026] HKCA 160

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 684 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 608 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 26 August 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 12 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 21 August 2018.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, he will be harmed or killed by members of the New People’s Army because of his counterterrorism role while he was a soldier with the Armed Forces of the Philippines from 1976 to 1988. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and referred to by the Judge in his decision (see §§3, 4, 10 and 11 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 §§15-24, 28 and 29 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge found that the Applicant had not advanced any or any proper grounds for his intended judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Judge did not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 3 September 2025, the Applicant merely states the following:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.” [sic]

5.  On 3 September 2025, the Applicant consented to his appeal being disposed of on paper by the Court without an oral hearing.

6.  In his written submissions lodged on 22 December 2025, the Applicant contends that the Board failed to consider the grave danger that he would face if he was to return to the Philippines where state protection would not be available to him. To support his contention, he refers to and relies on the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2023 produced by the US Department of State (“the Human Rights Report”) to illustrate the human rights situation in the Philippines.

DISCUSSION

7.  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)).

8.  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.

9.  The Applicant’s complaints raised in the Notice of Appeal and his written submissions against the decisions of the Judge and the Board are all general assertions without particulars, and do not constitute valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Human Rights Report is new evidence. The Applicant has not made any application for leave to adduce new evidence for the purpose of his appeal. In any event, the Human Rights Report, even if admitted, will add nothing of substance to the present appeal. As pointed out by the Judge, the Board correctly assessed the Applicant’s claim based on his situation at the time of the proceedings before the Board, and considered that state protection would be available to the Applicant, which would reduce the risk of harm to him upon refoulement (see §§21 and 22 of the CALL-1 Form). Assessment of country of origin information, risk of harm and state protection are primarily within the province of the Board. We see no basis to intervene in the Judge’s view on this matter.

11.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.