SIERVO MARY ANN MAYUGBA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

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 56-year-old national of the Philippines who last arrived in Hong Kong on 2 January 2019 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her employment contract or within 14 days of its early termination, but upon the completion of her last employment contract on 27 January 2021 she did not depart and instead overstayed, and subsequently raised a non-refoulement claim to the Immigration Department on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her abusive husband over their domestic disputes. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in San Fabian, Pangasinan, the Philippines. After leaving school she moved to Manila to work as a factory worker and domestic helper, then married her husband and raised a family with 4 children in his home district in Antipolo.

3.  Soon she found her husband abusive and violent towards her especially after being drunk by beating her at will causing her cuts and bruises all over her body.

4.  By 2009 the Applicant found herself no longer able to tolerate her husband’s abuses, and in order to stay away from him she started coming to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper, returning to the Philippines only for holidays, but upon the completion of her last employment in January 2021, she was afraid to return to the Philippines and therefore overstayed in Hong Kong and subsequently raised her non‑refoulement claim for protection, for which she completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 16 June 2022 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.             

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 20 July 2022 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 his 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 abusive husband 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 her husband 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 114 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 Davao or Cebu where it would be difficult if not impossible for her husband to locate her.

7.  On 27 July 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 8 May 2023 before the Board during which she gave evidence and answered questions raised of her claim by the Adjudicator for the Board.  On 16 May 2023 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 husband that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of her husband to seriously harm or kill her other than angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private domestic dispute between her and her husband 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 husband that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

9.  On 23 May 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 to which she just attached a copy of the decision 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 her 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 Board rejected her claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning as set out in its decision and with the benefit of hearing her in evidence and answers to questions raised of her claim, and in the absence of any error of law 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 to challenge the finding of the Board.

12.  Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been correctly established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim 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.                

13.  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.

14.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 7 January 2026 in writing requested to withdraw her application as her problem in her home country has already been resolved that it is now safe for her to return to the Philippines.

15.  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 that it is safe 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