RE MANZANO JHAEL NAVARRO

CACV 136/2026, [2026] HKCA 712

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 136 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 40 OF 2021)

__________________

__________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Queeny Au-Yeung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulment Claims) Vincent Lung (‘the Judge’) dated 12 February 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 219) (‘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 25 November 2020 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 16 December 2019, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 8 April 2026. Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 16 February 2026 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time. Accordingly, by [11] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper.

3.  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[1].

4.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines[2]. She claimed to have last arrived in Hong Kong in June 2019 and overstayed her visa for which she surrendered herself to the Immigration Department on 23 July 2019[3]. She made a non-refoulement claim on 24 July 2019. The basis of her claim is that if she returned to the Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by her former partner R as he was violent to her in the past and she had left the relationship with him[4].

5.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [5] – [12] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

6.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 16 February 2026, the applicant stated:

‘ The judgement is not reasonable. I want to appeal against the decision. Please reconsidered my application.’

Discussion

7.  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].

8.  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)].

9.  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.

10.  However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal did the applicant identify any error committed by the Judge with specific particulars. Her assertions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence. Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and her appeal is a non-starter. We see no basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.