|
HCAL 650/2022
[2026] HKCFI 4150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 650 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Dalaguit Marilou Maranan |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Bonnie Cheng:
1. Form 86 be amended, naming the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party in place of the Applicant.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By Form 86 dated 22 July 2022 (“Form 86”), the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 27 May 2022 (“Board’s Decision”), which affirmed the Decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 16 June 2021.
2. The Form 86 incorrectly named the Applicant herself as putative interested party. I therefore amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name the Director as the putative interested party instead.
3. An oral hearing, which was requested by the Applicant, took place before me on 4 March 2026. The Applicant attended in person.
4. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that she had nothing to add to the papers submitted for her Leave Application.
Background
5. The Applicant is from the Philippines. Her background and the basis of her application for non-refoulement were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision at this hyperlink.[1] I will not repeat them here. Unless otherwise specified, I adopt the abbreviations in the Board’s Decision.
6. In short, the Applicant claimed to be subject to the threat of harm in her home country from a creditor in respect of a loan taken out by her husband, who has disappeared.
Letter to withdraw Leave Application
7. After the hearing, the Court received a letter from the Director dated 24 June 2026, which in turn enclosed a letter from the Applicant dated 15 June 2026 stating that she would like to withdraw her judicial review application as she wanted to return to her home country as soon as possible, and that her issues in her home country had been resolved.
8. Given the Applicant’s application for withdrawal, it is not necessary for the Court to adjudicate on the merits of her Leave Application: Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCA 1140 at §14.
9. In any event, for completeness, I have considered the Leave Application and do not consider Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable, which is the threshold for leave to be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 at §§14-17.
10. In this Leave Application, the Applicant has not stated any ground of judicial review. She has not identified any error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case.
11. In any case, I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and I do not detect any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. The Board found the Applicant’s account credible but that the nature and extent of the risk she faces to be exaggerated: §55. The Board had set out its factual analysis with reasons in support of its view (§§58-59), which I consider reasonable.
Conclusion
12. For the above reasons, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended in the manner set out above and that the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 23rd day of July 2026
| |
(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 23/7/2026
Dalaguit Marilou Maranan
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 23/7/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18164/21/6/142/F1301
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 533/21 (formerly as RBCZ 10529/21)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|