RE GARILLO LYRIA MATIAS

CACV 141/2026, [2026] HKCA 711

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 330 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 Michael Wong (‘the Judge’) dated 4 February 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 709) (‘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 3 March 2021 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director) dated 20 October 2020 (‘the Director’s Decision’), refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  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 [1] – [4] of the Leave Decision[1].

3.  The applicant is a Filipino national[2]. She claimed to have last entered Hong Kong on 14 March 2018 as a domestic helper but later overstayed after her contract was terminated prematurely[3]. She made a non-refoulement claim by way of written representations dated 29 July 2020 and 12 August 2020[4]. The basis of her claim is that she would be seriously harmed or killed by her husband with whom she had domestic issues in the past after her return to the Philippines[5].

4.  The Judge sets out his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [11] - [32] of the Leave Decision. We will not repeat the details herein.

5.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 20 February 2026, the applicant stated:

‘ The Judgement was unreasonable I am pleading to the court of appeal to review my application.’ (sic)

6.  In her written submissions lodged on 25 March 2026, the applicant mostly made vague and bare allegations without any specific elaboration as to how any of those submissions relate to the Judge’s decision. She claimed that her case had not been determined fairly and that she was never provided with proper legal and language assistance[6]. She also claimed that the Board had been procedurally unfair, unreasonable and irrational, discriminatory towards non-refoulement claimants and had unlawfully fettered his decision in refusing her appeal[7]. Yet, she failed to condescend upon particulars on her general assertions.

7.  We heard the appeal on 8 April 2026. An Ilocano interpreter was present to provide language assistance. The applicant appeared with a baby, who she claims was born in November 2025. Upon the Court’s questioning, the applicant confirmed that she has not lodged any application in respect of her baby and that her present application concerned herself. The applicant had nothing further to add to her written submissions.

Discussion

8.  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].

9.  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)].

10.  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.

11.  However, nowhere in her Notice of Appeal or skeleton argument 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. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. The Court will not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information materials, 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. No such error was demonstrated by the applicant. Clearly, her assertions do not constitute viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.

12.  Furthermore, her complaints regarding the lack of language and legal assistance lack merit. As held in Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18], the high standard of fairness does not prescribe that a claimant has an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings. Also, the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail a provision of interpretation service being made available at any time a claimant desired or required: Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at [13].

13.  In the present case, the applicant was assisted by interpreters qualified in the Ilocano and English languages during the hearings before the Judge and the Board[8]. We also note that all of the court documents filed by the applicant in this appeal as well as before the Judge are in English, indicating either that she is familiar with the English language or that she had the means and access to such language assistance as she needed[9]. There is thus no substance in her complaints. Plainly, there is no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

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