GILE HONEY KIM LAQUIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1240/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1240 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following;

1.   Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.   The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.   The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

2.   The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 20 July 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought 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 19 June 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as both the proposed respondents and the proposed interested parties. As only Board’s Decision is being challenged, the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 15 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in details in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant is from the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper between 2013 to 2021 but she has since remained in Hong Kong. She claimed that she will be subject to serious harm by her former romantic partner known as Wilvin Pinigrin (“Wilvin”) if she were to return to her home country. The Applicant alleged that Wilvin is a member of the terrorist group “Abu Sayyaf”.

Discussion

5.  The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.  The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

7.  An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.  In her affirmation made in support of the Form 86, the Applicant advanced the following grounds of review:-

(1)  She claimed that she did not have adequate language assistance, in the proceedings before the Board, in particular, she claimed that the document bundle for the hearing before the Board was not explained to her (“Ground 1”).

(2)  She also challenged the Board’s finding on (i) lack of substantial grounds for believing that she would be in danger of serious harm; and (ii) availability of state protection (“Ground 2”).

9.  At the Hearing, the Applicant said she had nothing more to add to her application.

Ground 1

10.  I do not consider Ground 1 to be meritorious.

11.  In my view, the Applicant’s complaint about language difficulty is vague and unparticularised. It is noted that the Applicant has received university education. It is evident from her affirmation in support of the Form 86 that she has a good standard of English, a matter that she also confirmed with me during the Hearing.

12.  Despite her complaint about the bundle[2] used for the hearing before the Board, she has failed to identify with any degree of precision which documents were not understood by her and how they prejudiced her appeal.

13.  Further, it is not apparent from the Board’s Decision that she had raised any complaint about insufficient translation/interpretation support. On the contrary, as recorded in the Board’s Decision (§17), she was assigned a Tagalog interpreter to assist her in giving oral evidence and answering the Board’s questions. There is no indication in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had encountered any difficulty in that regard. In fact, as noted in the Board’s Decision (§43), she confirmed with the Board that she was able to fully participate in the hearing. Insofar as the COI was concerned, the Board had explained to the Applicant the gist of the COI considered by the Board to be material and the Applicant was given the opportunity to comment on the same (§59).

Ground 2

14.  Concerning the Applicant’s challenge of the Board’s findings, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any reviewable error or irrationality. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters in making those findings.

15.  The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm from Wilvin or Abu Sayyaf:-

(1)  Despite the alleged threat from Wilvin, on the Applicant’s own admission, none of her family members have ever received any threat or was harmed by Abu Sayyaf or Wilvin (§§33, 44, 48-49, 74(a)).

(2)  As admitted by the Applicant to the Board, Wilvin was only an ordinary person (§59). Even if I accept that Wilvin was associated with Abu Sayyaf, there is no suggestion that he had the influence and the capability to pursue the Applicant throughout the country (§§71, 74(d)‑(f)).

16.  The Applicant’s contention that she will not have police protection in Philippines is only her bare assertion. Having considered relevant COI, it was open to the Board to find that adequate state protection is available in the Applicant’s home country notwithstanding the existence of corruption and other problems in the law enforcement authorities. The Applicant’s failure to report the alleged threat to the police undermined her claim of genuine fear of harm (§74(g)).

17.  In such circumstances, Ground 2 is devoid of merits.

18.  As I do not find any of the proposed grounds reasonably arguable, leave for judicial review is refused.

Conclusion

19.  In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1