NARSUBA JENNY ANNE GUILLERMO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 580/2025, [2026] HKCA 242

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 580 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 751 OF 2020)

________________________

_____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 24 July 2025 (“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 30 March 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was put on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by an influential businesswoman because of her inability to repay the loan owed to that businesswoman. She also feared that her husband would ill-treat her. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 14 August 2019, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 30 March 2020. 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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 24 July 2025. 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 August 2025, the Applicant states the following:

“I want the both appeals to be reviewed and overturned. My life is still in danger should I return to my country.”

5.  The Applicant has lodged her 9-page written submission on 12 January 2026 which we have considered carefully.

6.  The appeal was heard on 12 February 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter and informed us of her health issues, and that her life remains in danger.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

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 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)).

8.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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

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.