MACARAIG JIMWOEL CORPUZ v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 872/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 872 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to (a) name the NRCPO as putative respondent, (b) to specify the NRCPO’s decision on 23 April 2020 to be the decision sought to be reviewed, and (c) name the DI as putative interested party; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant filed a Form 86 on 11 May 2020 (“Form 86”) challenging a decision dated 23 April 2020, but has failed to identify who made the decision and the nature of the decision. He just wrote down “my case was reviewed and dismissed, I don’t like to go back in home of origin because my life is still not safe” next to the date of 23 April 2020 in the relevant box of the Form 86. Neither has he attached or exhibited a copy of any decision dated 23 April 2020 to the Form 86 or the supporting affirmation. The supporting affirmation was ambiguous as to what the Applicant was challenging.

2.  Copies of the decisions made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) and Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) dated respectively 12 April 2017 and 23 April 2020 (by the same Board Member/Adjudicator) were subsequently made available to the Court. The first decision was an assessment of the Applicant’s risks of being tortured, persecuted and violated his right under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights (“BOR”) should he return to the Philippines. The second decision was an assessment of the risk of his right under Article 2 of the BOR being violated.

3.  In the oral hearing of this application on 10 July 2025, the Court briefly explained the situation and enquired if the Applicant was challenging the first or the second decision of the TCAB/NRCPO, to which the Applicant confirmed to be the second decision made in 2020. During this process, the Applicant indicated to me he wanted to go home and his decision was not to stay in Hong Kong. However, the Applicant did not state that he wished to withdraw the present application for leave to apply for judicial review.

4.  I have reviewed the second decision made by the NRCPO on Article 2 of the BOR, a copy of which can be viewed by the hyperlink below[1], vigorously. In that decision, it was said the Applicant did not submit any additional information or materials for the purpose of the Article 2 assessment after the first decision was made. After considering the evidence available to the same Board Member/Adjudicator, he came to the view that state protection was reasonably available in the Philippines to address the Applicant’s alleged fear of being killed/harmed by a rebel group called New People’s Army. The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on Article 2 of the BOR was not established.

5.  In my judgment, the NRCPO’s 2020 decision had no errors of law, was not irrational and had shown no sign of procedural unfairness. There was an oral hearing specifically for this petition on Article 2 of BOR.

6.  It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB/NRCPO. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, this Court would not reopen the TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246). Moreover, in view of the Applicant’s indication of wanting to leave Hong Kong, it is also not reasonably arguable that any relief should be granted to him.

7.  This leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1