ECHENIQUE NIMFA NABOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 585/2026, [2026] HKCA 1315

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 585 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1695 OF 2021)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

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 Michael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[1] (“the Order”) refusing to grant the Applicant extension of time and dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 8 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Republic of the Philippines.  On 8 September 2020, she made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she feared she would be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend with whom she had domestic problems in the past.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 22 April 2021 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 8 September 2021.  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 applications for extension of time and leave to apply for judicial review were refused by the Judge on 27 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 4 June 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“I do not agree with the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court did not scrutinise my claim properly. Despite my problem in my home country is very severe the Court of First Instance and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The decision makers considered my claims as a simply. If I return to my country I will be killed by my enemies.” (sic)

5.  In the skeleton argument lodged on 6 July 2026, the Applicant complained that the Judge was unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair and failed to analyse her claim properly.  She also complained that the Board failed to give her sufficient chance to arrange for relevant evidence in support of her case and that the Board failed to assess whether state protection existed and whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights existed in her home country.  She then reiterated that she would face hardship if refouled and that the Board had significantly relied on the source of news not being officially recognised.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter and confirmed that she had nothing further to add.

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. General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  The Applicant already had ample opportunities before the Board and the Judge, both orally and in writing, to present her case.[2] There is no substance in her contentions and we see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

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.