DOLOR EMELIE ROSE ATIENZA alias ATIENZA EMELIE ROSE alias DOLOR EMELIE ROSE alias DOLOR EMELIE ROSE A v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 33/2023

[2025] HKCFI 5713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 33 OF 2023

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

Following:

The Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 33-year-old national of the Philippines who arrived in Hong Kong on 23 November 2019 with permission to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract on 23 November 2021 or within 14 days of its early termination, but when her employment was prematurely terminated on 12 April 2021, she did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 16 June 2021. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her former boyfriend over their domestic disputes. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat, the Philippines. After leaving school she cohabited with her boyfriend Alvin and raised a family with their 4 children in her home district.

3.  However, Alvin was hot tempered with a violent disposition towards the Applicant by pushing and slapping her around throughout their relationship, and to stay away from his abuses the Applicant in 2016 went to Saudi Arabia to work as a domestic helper until 2019 when she came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper.

4.  In 2020, she met and formed a relationship with a man in Hong Kong, and when Alvin found out about it, he was furious and threatened to kill the Applicant when she returned to the Philippines, and so when her last employment contract was terminated on 12 April 2021, the Applicant was afraid to return to the Philippines and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong, and upon her subsequent arrest by the police she then raised her non-refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 22 November 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 21 December 2021, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of her absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

6.  In her decision, the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from her former boyfriend Alvin upon her return to the Philippines as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of Alvin to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private domestic dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in the Philippines with a large population of 110 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from her home district in large cities such as Manila where it would be difficult if not impossible for Alvin to locate her.

7.  On 5 January 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which she attended an oral hearing on 14 October 2022 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 22 December 2022, her appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.  In its decision[1], the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of her claim of fear of harm from her former boyfriend Alvin that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if her account of events as regard threats from her boyfriend were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her former boyfriend to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private relationship dispute between just the 2 of them only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon her return to the Philippines as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for her to move safely to other parts of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located by her former boyfriend that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

9.  On 10 January 2023, the Applicant filed her Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in her Form or her supporting affirmation of the same date in which she just repeated her claim as before but without putting forth any proper ground for her intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

10.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

11.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in her claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for her to relocate to other part of the Philippines, there is simply no justification to afford her with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

12.  Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

13.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 21 October 2025 in writing requested to withdraw her application as the issues in her home country have been resolved that she now wants to return to the Philippines.

14.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation of no more issues for her to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application.

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