HERMOSA ARNOLD TOLENTINO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 373/2025, [2026] HKCA 644

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 2115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.373 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2692 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court)  :

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“Judge”)  dated 27 May 2025 (“Order”)  refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”)  dated 15 August 2019 (“Board’s Decision”).

Background

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. On 28 March 2014, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the terrorist group New People’s Army for deserting the group[1].  The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  on 23 June 2015[2] and 3 August 2017[3], and the appeals against the Director’s decisions were rejected by the Board on 13 April 2017[4] and 15 August 2019 respectively.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeals can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 27 May 2025, §§2 to 11. 

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 May 2025.  Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the CALL-1 Form. 

Grounds of Appeal

4.  In the Notice of Appeal filed on 6 June 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“I should be happy to provide to the Notice of Appeal with any further information regard to my Notice of Appeal Also requested to the Notice of Appeal please allow me I am Submit new Written of Submission related my Notice of Appeal Bundle of thanks.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions filed on 25 March 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that :

(1)  The Director had failed to appreciate or give proper weight to the presence of state acquiescence in the Applicant’s case.

(2)  The Director, the Board and the Court had failed to take into account state acquiescence, or failed to give it sufficient weight before reaching their decisions.

(3)  The Board had failed to make sufficient enquiry before finalizing its determination.

(4)  The Director selectively relied on interpretations of relevant country of origin information that supported a pre-conceived conclusion while disregarding contrary material.

(5)  The Board did not properly weigh the gravity of the Applicant’s personal circumstances when considering his non-refoulement case.

6.  The Applicant did not appear at the hearing of this appeal.

Legal Principles

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 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: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. 

Discussion and Disposition

9.  All the matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are general allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision.

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order. 

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