SALAMORIN ANNALIE MABINI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 804/2021

[2026] HKCFI 310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 804 OF 2021

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;          or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Form 86 be amended, naming only the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

2.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 1 June 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) 5 March 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 30 December 2019 (the “DOI Decision”).

2.  I amend the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the DOI as the putative interested party.

3.  The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. During the hearing, she said that she had nothing to add.

Background

4.  The Applicant is a national of Philippines. In gist, she is afraid of her ex-partner, Lauro, with whom she has had domestic troubles in the past, including concerning the custody of her children. She fears that Lauro would harm, ill-treat and/or kill her were she to be refouled to the Philippines. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

5.  The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

6.  I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

8.  The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought, and hence did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.

9.  As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [42-92]. This is notwithstanding the fact that the TCAB accepted the basic facts spoken by the Applicant, including the fact that she did receive threats from Lauro and that she still subjectively feared him and that she would be harmed upon returning to Philippines [38]. This is because the TCAB found, inter alia, that (1) Lauro had the opportunity, but did not harm her or her children since 2018 [39, 40(1)]; (2) Lauro’s previous threats were localised, and there was nothing to suggest that Lauro would be able or willing to search for her anywhere in the Philippines [40(2)] (3) the Applicant would have state protection [40(3), 53-59, 61]; and (4) relocation to a different area would not be unduly harsh for her [80-88]. The TCAB’s reasoning was nuanced and meticulous.

10.  All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

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