CALUMBA STEPHEN REGIDOR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 510/2025, [2026] HKCA 689

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 510 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2673 OF 2019)

__________________________

BETWEEN

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”) dated 11 July 2025[1] (“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 2 August 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 20 December 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by a member of the New People’s Army (“NPA”) named Jovan and his followers because the applicant refused to join the NPA. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background and his process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [2] – [13] of the Form CALL-1 dated 11 July 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 16 July 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the ground that (sic):-

“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 in 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 her 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 applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The applicant should be given an opportunity to plead her case properly.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 5 March 2026, the applicant essentially just repeated his grounds of appeal as quoted above but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

6.  At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the applicant said his life is still in danger in the Philippines.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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 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.

9.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in the applicant’s ground of appeal and his submissions are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to his present appeal.

10.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal and written submissions failed to identify any error on the part of the Judge. They do not constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

11.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.