|
HCAL 763/2020
[2025] HKCFI 3519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 763 of 2020
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Dimnatang Aljunaidi Romero |
Applicant |
|
And
|
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
Putative Respondent |
|
And |
|
|
Director of Immigration
|
Putative Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended as per paragraph 2 of the “Observations for the Applicant” below; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The Applicant filed a Form 86 on 24 April 2020 (“Form 86”) and named the Torture Claim Appeal Board as the putative respondent. He failed to identify the date of the decision sought to be reviewed, and put down a date “April 23, 2020” in an inapt blank. Be that as it may, the Applicant exhibited a copy of a decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB/NRCPO”) dated 16 April 2020 assessing his non-refoulement claim (“the Board Decision”) to his supporting affirmation. In the oral hearing before this Court, he also confirmed that was the decision being challenged.
2. The Board Decision was made pursuant to a notice of appeal/petition against the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s tier-one decision dated 30 July 2019. On my own motion, I amended the Form 86 to name the TCAB/NRCPO as the putative respondent, the Board Decision as the “decision in respect of which relief is sought” and the DI as a putative interested party.
3. In the oral hearing, the Applicant reiterated he wanted to stay in Hong Kong because the conditions in the Philippines are not good; he had nothing to say in relation to the legality, rationality or procedural fairness of the Board Decision.
4. I have reviewed the Board Decision, a copy of which can be viewed by the hyperlink below[1], vigorously. The centrepiece of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was that he would be harmed or killed by (a) certain individuals connected to politics and/or (b) the family members of the victims of a killing incident if he was refouled to the Philippines. He alleged that the killing incident was done by his half-blood brother in revenge of their father’s death, and thus the other side would go after him for further revenge. The TCAB/NRCPO recorded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim and that his assertion of risk was unconvincing. In the relevant factual enquiry, the TCAB/NRCPO gave weight to the facts that the Applicant did not report any threat to the Police or other Government authorities in the Philippines, and he had travelled to various places in the country before coming to Hong Kong. The Applicant actually came to Hong Kong once in January 2016, then went back to the Philippines and stayed there for over 2 years. According to his claim, his alleged risk should have already emerged before this first visit to Hong Kong. He later came to Hong Kong the second time on the strength of a Filipino passport in November 2018, and surrendered to the DI to make a non-refoulement claim shortly thereafter. In these circumstances, the TCAB/NRCPO was obviously entitled to come to the view that the Applicant had failed to show any well-founded fear of being persecuted or any risk of being subject to torture or other violation of his fundamental human rights if he was refouled to the Philippines.
5. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB/NRCPO. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen their findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).
6. The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.
Dated the 11th day of August 2025
| |
(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
for Registrar, High Court |
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant on 11 August 2025
Dimnatang Aljunaidi Romero
Applicant’s ref. no.:
Nil.
|
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11 August 2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16188/19/8/50/F1095
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 411/19 (formerly RBCZ 10276/19)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)
|
Form CALL-1
|