SANTOS PETER FELIX GUMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 831/2025, [2026] HKCA 457

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 831 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2773 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 23 September 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 12 September 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. On 15 October 2018, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain local gangsters in his home district because he witnessed them committing a murder.[1] The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 16 November 2018, and his appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 12 September 2019. 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, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form dated 23 September 2025.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 23 September 2025. 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 October 2025, the Applicant states the following that:

“1. The Director’s Decision, it was evident that the director has failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weightage to the presence of state Acquiescence in the applicant’s case. This has indeed led to an unfair outcome of rejecting applicants non-refoulement claim.

2. The Applicant submit that the Director, the Adjudicator and the Court have failed to take such argument into account or that the Director has failed to give sufficient weight to such argument before reaching the Decision.

3. The Adjudicator failed to make sufficient enquiring before finalizing the determination. The Adjudicator stated that the applicant had failed to advice any credible evidence to prove material elements of his claim.

4. Surprisingly, the director in applicant Decision while referring to relevant COI’s kept including meaning which suited the applicant pre-conceived conclusion. This was a clean case of unfair attitude shown by the Director which in itself is enough to render the applicant’s decision.

5. The grounds of this appeal are that the gravity of the applicant circumstances has noted been weighed or realized by both putative Respondents while considering the application’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead his case properly.” (sic)

5.  In the written submissions lodged on 19 January 2026, the Applicant essentially argues that:

(1) The Director failed to appreciate state acquiescence.

(2) The Director, the Board and the Court failed to give weight to such argument (state acquiescence).

(3) The Board failed to make sufficient enquiry before making its decision.

(4) The Director while referring to relevant country of origin information kept including meaning which suited the Applicant’s pre-conceived conclusion.

(5) The gravity of the Applicant’s circumstances has noted been weighted or realised.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

6.  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)).

7.  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.

8.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and written submissions are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. The Applicant has failed to identify or show 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.

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