CASTILLO CATLIN MARTIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 571/2026, [2026] HKCA 1314

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 2934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 571 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1216 OF 2023)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 26 May 2026[1] (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 26 June 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Republic of the Philippines.  She made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she feared she would be harmed or killed by her husband over her relationship with another man in Hong Kong.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 23 September 2022 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 26 June 2023.  Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision.  

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 26 May 2026.  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 3 June 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I want to appeal agains the decision the decision reached unreasonable please review my application.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 7 July 2026, the Applicant merely stated her life was in danger and reiterated the procedural history of her non-refoulement claim and that she disagreed with the Board’s Decision.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter. The Applicant informed us that her husband in the Philippines was still threatening her.

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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general, vague and bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.