RE PANTE LUISA TUPPIL

CACV 193/2025, [2025] HKCA 1123

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 193 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2532 OF 2019)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Reuden Lai (“the Judge”) dated 2 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1342) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against  the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 22 July 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 31 August 2017, refusing her non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [2] ‑ [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] ‑ [25] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 14 April 2025, the applicant stated:

“I am disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on some web news which officially not recognised.” (sic)

4.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 10 November 2025. In those submissions, she complained that her case was not determined fairly by the Board.  She asserted that she was never provided with proper legal and language assistance and the Board’s Decision had never been read to her in her own language.  She further complained that the Board’s Decision was tainted by procedural unfairness, was unreasonable or otherwise irrational in the public law sense and the Board was discriminatory towards non-refoulement claimants.

5.  We heard the appeal on 9 December 2025.  An Ilocano interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, she confirmed that she had nothing to add to her written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant in this appeal to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify any error with specific particulars committed by the Judge.  Her assertions and complaints are mainly directed at the Board’s Decision, which are not proper grounds of appeal.  On this basis alone, her appeal must be dismissed.

10.  In any event, her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  General and bare assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute valid grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Insofar as her complaints on the Country of Origin materials are concerned, the Judge had fully considered and rejected the same at [17] of the Leave Decision.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision based on these complaints.

11.  As to her complaints on the lack of language and legal assistance, these are all new grounds not raised before the Judge.  It is well established that this Court will generally not entertain new arguments which are fact-and-evidence sensitive which have not been canvassed at the Court of First Instance and for which leave has not been sought within time: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]; Re Gurpreet Singh [2021] HKCA 1740 at [15].  In any event, we noted that all of the court documents filed by the applicant in this appeal as well as before the court below are in English.  Clearly, the applicant is at the least able to obtain assistance in English.  Moreover, it has been repeatedly emphasised by the Court of Appeal that as a matter of law, a non‑refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as she desires: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas[2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11].  We see no merit in these complaints.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is wholly without merit.  The applicant’s appeal is hereby dismissed.