DANGARAN MEYNARD GASPAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 546/2025, [2026] HKCA 871

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 546 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 323 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 15 July 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 11 March 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. On 20 September 2019, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 9 January 2020. On 6 March 2020, the Applicant filed a Form 86 for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dismissing the appeal against the Director’s decision,[1] but the Board’s Decision only came into existence on 11 March 2022.[2]  On 15 July 2025, the Judge refused the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review for the lack of cause of action to commence the leave application in the first place.[3]  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 15 July 2025.[4]

3.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 July 2025, the Applicant states that:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his 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 They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.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)

4.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in support of the appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 25 February 2026. Accordingly, the Applicant is deemed to have waived the right to have an oral hearing of the appeal and elected to have the 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.

5.  In our view, the Judge was entirely correct in rejecting the Applicant’s leave application. A judicial review cannot possibly be mounted against any decision which had not yet come into existence at the time of the leave application.

6.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

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