METODA GEMMALYN GALANG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 855/2025, [2026] HKCA 1076

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 855 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1724 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan 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) Martin Wong (“Judge”) dated 25 September 2025 by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 20 December 2019 (“Board’s Decision”) was dismissed. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the Applicant’s non-refoulement claims.

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. The basis of her non-refoulement claim had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, which may be viewed online via the hyperlink contained in [6] of the Form CALL-1 dated 25 September 2025. In gist, the Applicant claims that if she returns to her home country, she will be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend for refusing to marry him.

3.  In [8] to [15] of the Form CALL-1, the Judge gave detailed reasons for refusing the Leave Application.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 8 October 2025, the Applicant appeals against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant contends that :

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”

5.  In the Applicant’s written submissions lodged on 22 October 2025, she stated that the Director and the Board did not take into account the cultural context and individual background of her case in making their decisions, and thus committed procedural errors[1]. Further, she inadvertently did not attend the hearing before the Board.

6.  The Applicant elected to have her appeal dealt with on paper. Having considered the documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with this appeal on paper without an oral hearing.

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 Director and the Board. 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.

9.  In this case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board[2]. It is incumbent on the Applicant to point out the Judge’s errors with sufficient specificities. We note that the Applicant attended the hearing before the Judge.

10.  In our view, the matters set out in the Notice of Appeal and written submissions do not properly identify any error on the part of the Judge. They lack substance and do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.