PILIS ISABEL DEPPAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 775/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 775 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and the Applicant being absent at the hearing in open court;

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 19 May 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 11 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (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 13 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant was absent.

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 claimed that she would be subject to serious harm from her former romantic partner known as “Mr J” should the Applicant be returned to the Philippines.

Discussion

5.  This type of applications 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.  It is trite that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially within the remit of the Director and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. A court will not usurp their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which this court will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

7.  It is also well established that, 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: Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.  The Applicant did not comply with the above requirements. She failed to provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in her Form 86 and her affidavit in support. Her absence at the Hearing is also indicative of the want of prosecution of the Leave Application. On account of these matters, leave should be refused.

9.  In any event, I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness 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.

10.  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 as, taken at its highest, the case was one of domestic violence with a remote risk of harm to the Applicant. On the Applicant’s own evidence, Mr J was suffering from alcohol and drug addiction. He had provided food for the children in their family and there was no incident of harm to the Applicant’s family members (§§29, 36-38).

11.  The Applicant’s contention of her inability to relocate to other parts of her home country is not substantiated in the circumstances. The Applicant, as an able‑bodied adult with reasonable education and working experience as a domestic helper, should have no genuine difficulty relocating to places such as Cebu. There is no evidence Mr J will be able to pursue her after relocation (§§38-41).

12.  In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and cannot be said to be irrational.

13.  In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Leave is refused.

Conclusion

14.  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