QUILAMAR REGINA JUYAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1075/2025, [2026] HKCA 1272

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 5357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1075 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 196 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 11 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 5 November 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 24 July 2019.

2.  The Applicant alleges that, if refouled to the Philippines, she will be harmed or killed by the people of a drug syndicate and the family of her partner (Teodoro Javier), because she reported her partner and two of his friends belonging to the drug syndicate to the police.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim, the findings of the Board and its reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision have been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and summarised by the Judge in his decision (see §§4, 7 and 8 of the CALL-1 Form).  We do not propose to repeat them here.

3.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Applicant’s leave application are set out at §§12-17 of the CALL-1 Form.  In gist, the Judge held that the Applicant had not provided any explanation for her delay in taking out the leave application, or any specific grounds for her intended challenge against the Board’s Decision, and she had failed to show that her intended judicial review had any realistic prospect of success.

THIS APPEAL

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 24 November 2025, the Applicant merely states the following:

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

5.  In her written submissions lodged on 15 June 2026, the Applicant contends that the Board failed to consider the grave danger that she would face if she was to return to the Philippines where state protection would not be available to her.  To support her contention, she refers to a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights dated 29 June 2020 (which she mistakenly refers to as a 2022 report) (“the Human Rights Report”) to illustrate the human rights situation in the Philippines.  She also complains that she did not fully understand the legal procedures relating to the determination of her claim due to her lack of legal assistance, and the Judge erred in dismissing her application merely because she had not filed her application within time.

6.  At the hearing of the appeal, the Applicant informed the Court that her son is currently receiving primary 1 education in Hong Kong.

DISCUSSION

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.  Further, 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, at §13.  No such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board is shown in the present case.

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are new points which were not raised in her leave application below.  No good reason has been shown for allowing the Applicant to raise them for the first time in the Court of Appeal.  In any event, they are general assertions without particulars.  Her complaint about the lack of legal assistance has no merit.  The court has repeatedly held that the high standard of fairness required to be observed in the assessment of a non-refoulement claim does not include the provision of legal assistance to a non-refoulement claimant at all times that he/she wishes to have such assistance.  Her complaint that the Judge dismissed her application solely on the basis of her delay is unjustified, as the Judge also found that there was no valid ground raised by the Applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision.  In all, none of the matters raised by the Applicant can constitute a valid ground of appeal against the Judge’s decision. 

10.  The Human Rights Report is new evidence.  The Applicant has not made any application for leave to adduce new evidence for the purpose of her appeal.  In any event, the Human Rights Report, even if admitted, will add nothing of substance to the present appeal as the Board did consider relevant country of origin information when assessing the Applicant’s claim, and came to the conclusion that state protection would be available to the Applicant and there would be reasonable internal relocation options open to her in her home country (see §§57 and 76-80 and of the Board’s Decision).  As earlier mentioned, assessment of country of origin information, risk of harm and state protection are primarily within the province of the Board.  We see no basis to intervene in the Board’s assessment of those matters.

11.  The Applicant has failed to raise any viable ground of appeal against the Order.

12.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.