RE BALANE MARCELA TATSON

CACV 187/2025, [2026] HKCA 374

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 187 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3687 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 (Non-refoulement Claims)  Philips Wong (“the Judge”)  dated 27 March 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1166)  (“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 1 November 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 22 January 2019, 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 [4] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 10 April 2025, the applicant requests the court “to grant leave to appeal” but failed to advance any ground in support of her appeal.

4.  The appeal was listed to be heard on 2 September 2025.  The applicant was directed to lodge two sets of skeleton argument on or before 5 August 2025 and was warned that if she failed to do so, she would be deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing for the appeal and the hearing date would be vacated with the appeal to be determined on paper.  The directions and the warning were sent to the applicant by the Notice of Hearing dated 23 July 2025.  However, the applicant did not lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal.

5.  As the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument by the stipulated time, the hearing was thus vacated on 7 August 2025 and we proceeded to consider her appeal on paper.

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 to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.  As no ground has been advanced by the applicant, her appeal is clearly without merit and must be dismissed.

9.  For the above reasons, we see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.  The applicant’s appeal has no merit and is hereby dismissed.