ONDIVILLA CATALINA RESPICIO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 202/2026, [2026] HKCA 942

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 202 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1327 OF 2025)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Deputy High Court Judge Yuen (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 27 February 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 29 May 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. On 20 November 2024, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by a man called Alex because she had disclosed that Alex was a drug addict, and he was charged and imprisoned as a result.[1] The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 13 March 2025, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 29 May 2025. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 27 February 2026.[2]

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 February 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 March 2026, the Applicant states the following:

“I am Disagree with The decision Maker authorities. They Make totally un Fair Decision. Sir decision Maker not give Justice. The give same decision like Torture Claims appeal Board / director of Immigration. Sir I have also Medical issue still I have life Threating in my country. please Grant my case For protection of my Life. Medical certificate document attached. I do not Think my case determined Fairly.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument filed on 8 April 2026 (“SA”), the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The Director and the Board wrongly assessed the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.[3]

(2) The Applicant’s right to life is protected under the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights.[4]

(3) The authorities dispose of non-refoulement cases on the basis of speed.[5]

(4) The Director failed to give sufficient weight to state acquiescence, or failed to take such argument into account before reaching his decision.[6]

(5) The Board placed too much reliance on country of origin information and failed to take into account the Applicant’s personal background and experience.[7]

(6) The Director failed to give enough weight to country of origin information that the police in the Applicant’s country would not be able to protect her.[8]

(7) The Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal “based on the findings which the Board ought to allow the appeal.”[9]

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

6.  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 of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’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)).

7.  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.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

8.  The Applicant’s medical condition does not affect the validity of the Judge’s decision.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Order.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.