LALAS EDNORAY VILLAFANIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1100/2025, [2026] HKCA 1273

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5474

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1100 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1863 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 K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 19 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 10 September 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 December 2019.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, he will be harmed or killed by his brother (Jonathan) and people related to his brother’s drug business because he refused to take drugs and also refused to accede to his brother’s demand for money[1].  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 summarised by the Judge in the Judge’s decision (see §§4, 5, 8 and 9 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 §§13-17 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge considered that the grounds of intended challenge put forward by the Applicant had no merit, and the Applicant had failed to show that his intended judicial review had any realistic prospect of success.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In his Notice of Appeal filed on 27 November 2025, the Applicant alleges that the Judge committed the following errors of law:

“a) The court may have misapplied the legal test for non-refoulement (e.g. Article 3 of the ECHR CAT obligations, Refugee Convention principles).

b) Failure to properly interpret international obligations binding on the jurisdiction.

c)  Ignoring relevant statutory provisions on applying wrong legal standard.” [sic]

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 10 June 2026, the Applicant makes various general allegations against the decisions of the “Assessors”, “TCAB” and “Honourable judges”, including failing to take into account relevant considerations, taking into account irrelevant considerations, failing to properly follow the high standard of fairness or inquire into his claim, and failing to consider relevant country of origin information in assessing the risk of harm to him.  He contends that the Judge, the Board and/or the Director failed to observe his “fear” properly for the purpose of determining his claim for non-refoulement protection, and erred in (i) disbelieving his case which he asserts is credible and based on the real danger and continuing threat faced by him from his enemies in his home country, (ii) holding that state protection would be available to him and internal relocation would be a viable option, and (iii) failing to properly assess the evidence and materials in his case.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant said that although Jonathan is currently hiding from the police in the Philippines (because he has killed another brother of the Applicant), he still wishes to kill him.

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.  As mentioned above, the Applicant contends, in his Notice of Appeal, that the Judge misapplied Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principles in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.  We do not see that the Applicant’s reliance on these two international conventions provides any assistance to his appeal.  The Board assessed his non-refoulement claim with reference to all applicable risks, including the BOR 3 risk and persecution risk.  It was not the Judge’s function to assess the Applicant’s claim afresh.  The Judge did not commit any error of law, or misapply any legal principle.  The Judge determined the Applicant’s leave application in accordance with established public law principles in coming to the conclusion that his intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.

10.  All the assertions raised in the Applicant’s written submissions are general allegations without particulars, and mainly concern matters falling within the province of the Board and the Director. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

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

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