BAUTISTA PRECILLA NORCIO AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 416/2019

[2024] HKCFI 733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 416 OF 2019

BETWEEN

_______________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is a third party’s application by affidavit filed (the “Affidavit”) seeking leave to join as a party to his partner’s and their daughter’s (the 1^st and 2^nd Applicants’ herein) application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”).

2.  The third party is not a party to the leave application. He is a national of the Philippines. While staying in Hong Kong as a non-refoulement claimant, he allegedly came to engaged in a relationship with the 1^st Applicant and gave birth to the 2^nd Applicant. His own non-refoulement application had been rejected by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”), his appeal against the Director’s decision had been dismissed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Petition Office (the “Board”), his application for judicial review against the decision of the Board had been refused by the Court of First Instance and his appeal against that decision had also been dismissed by the Court of Appeal with leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused. In other words, his non-refoulement claim has run its full course.

3.  The third party’s non-refoulement claim is founded on his risk of being harmed or killed as he had witnessed the murder of a neighbour by someone working for a candidate of a mayoral election in the Quezon province of the Philippines. The 1^st Applicant’s non-refoulement claim is based on her fear that she and the 2^nd Applicant would be harmed or killed by her husband because she gave birth to the 2^nd Applicant with another man in Hong Kong.

4.  The third party’s own non-refoulement claim has run its full course. He is hitherto not a party to the Applicants’ non-refoulement claim. His and the Applicants’ feared source of harm are different and not related. There is absolutely no commonality between his claim and the Applicants’. There is absolutely no merit in this application, which is accordingly refused.