CACV 246/2024, [2024] HKCA 977
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 1478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1018 OF 2019)
-----------------------
RE:
CARBONEL MARIA DELIA MERA
Applicant
-----------------------
Before :
Hon Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J in Court
Date of Judgment :
29 October 2024
-----------------------
JUDGMENT
-----------------------
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1) The appeal
1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (‘the Judge’) of 6 June 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.
2. This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 15 October 2024. Despite the directions from the High Court to the applicant dated 13 August 2024, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton argument by the stipulated time. Accordingly the Court informed the applicant by letter dated 23 September 2024 that the hearing would be vacated and the Court would deal with this appeal on paper.
2) Background
3. The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She last arrived in Hong Kong in June 2011 and was permitted to remain as a foreign domestic worker. Her employment contract was pre-maturely terminated and she overstayed since October 2011. On 20 August 2013, the applicant made a non-refoulement claim after she failed in her torture claim application[1] .
4. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend[2] .
5. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [6].
3) The Director’s Decision
6. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 27 August 2018. The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life) risk (‘BOR 2’), Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) risk (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against persecution except for torture which has been previously disposed [3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
4) The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4] . After a hearing held on 21 January 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 21 March 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
8. The Board’s finding is summarized in the decision of the Judge at [9] to [10].
5) Decision of the Judge
9. The applicant filed his Form 86 and affirmation and set out various grounds for judicial review, see the decision of the Judge at [11].
10. The Judge held that the grounds set out by the applicant are broad and vague assertions without any necessary particulars as to how they apply to the applicant’s case. The applicant’s complaint about the hearing bundle being delivered late was not reasonably arguable as most of the documents in the bundle were already provided to her earlier in the process before the Director. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in either the decisions of the Director or the Board. See the decision of the Judge at [12]-[17].
6) Grounds of appeal
11. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :
‘ 1. I am not satisfied with the decisions because it/s away from facts and reality which are related with my case. There is no any transparency in these decision.
2. I can be used as an example of such cases of seeking asylum in Hong Kong to his home country, that there was a person who was deported forcefully from Hong Kong to his home country was killed by his enemies. So I believe that if the Court allows me to stay in Hong Kong would be not less than saving a life. I respectfully ask to the Court that please allow me to stay in Hong Kong safely.’
7) Our view
12. We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits. The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review. An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced. The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
13. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.
14. We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
(Lisa Wong)
Justice of Appeal
Judge of the Court of First Instance
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [1],[3], [10] and [11];
[2] Director’s Decision at [6];
[3] Director’s Decision at [3], [12]-[13];
[4] Board’s Decision at [5];