|
CACV 526/2026, [2026] HKCA 1274
On Appeal from [2026] HKCFI 2260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 526 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 701 OF 2022)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
SANCHEZ MARISSA MACAPIA
|
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 Mimmie Chan J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
14 July 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
4 August 2026 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
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 19 July 2022 (“the Board’s
Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of
Immigration (“the Director”) dated 19 August 2021.
2. The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines,
she will be harmed or killed by a local moneylender due to her failure to repay a loan extended to her in 2016[1]. The Applicant’s background, the basis of her
claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing her appeal against the Director’s decision have
been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision referred to by the Judge at §1 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 §§3-9 of the CALL-1 Form. In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant had failed
to point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, and the
Applicant’s intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
THIS APPEAL
4. In her Notice of Appeal filed on 26 May 2026, the Applicant
states that she would like to “reject and review” the decisions of the Board and the Judge which she alleges are
unreasonable.
5. In her written submissions lodged on 22 June 2026, the
Applicant merely repeats the procedural history of her claim since the date of her last arrival in Hong Kong in
January 2019.
6. At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant said that the
moneylender or her people were still going to her home in the Philippines, but her mother did not open the door
and refused to allow them to enter her home.
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’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, at §13. 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 |
(Mimmie Chan)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, appearing in person
[1] See §9 of the Board’s Decision.
|