|
CACV 519/2026, [2026] HKCA 1228
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 519 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 931 OF 2022)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
VILLEGAS MELONIE BUSANTE
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
________________________
| Before: |
Hon Chow JA and Winnie Tsui J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
9 July 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
30 July 2026 |
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy
High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Ken To (“the Judge”) dated 18 May 2026 (“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 29 August 2022 (“the Board’s
Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of
Immigration (“the Director”) dated 4 November 2021.
2. The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines,
she will be harmed or killed by her abusive husband (Ramer Deasis Villegas) who, according to the Applicant,
assaulted her in the past and suspected that she had a boyfriend in Hong Kong[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her 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 §8 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 §§4-9 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge considered that the Applicant had
not advanced any or any proper grounds for her intended judicial review, and found that there was no reasonably
arguable basis for the court to intervene in the Board’s Decision.
THIS APPEAL
4. In her Notice of Appeal filed on 21 May 2026, the Applicant
merely states that she wants to appeal and she considers the Judge’s decision to be unreasonable.
5. In her written submissions lodged on 27 May 2026, the
Applicant essentially repeats the history of her claim since her arrival in Hong Kong and also her claimed fear
of harm if she was to return to her home country.
6. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the present
appeal.
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’s role is not to examine the Board or Director’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. No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality
in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.
9. The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal
against the Order.
10. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
(Winnie Tsui)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant was not represented and did not appear
[1] See §34 of the Board’s Decision.
|