DIMNATANG ALJUNAIDI ROMERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 626/2025, [2026] HKCA 172

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 626 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 763 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

__________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

__________________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) given in the Form CALL-1 and the Order dated 11 August 2025,[1] refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 16 April 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 30 July 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. In his non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 25 June 2019, he lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by certain individuals connected to politics and/or the family members of the victims of a killing incident committed by his half-brother. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 16 April 2020. 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 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.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 19 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 22 December 2025, his arguments are as follows (sic) :

1.The judge believes that my story is inconsistent and it seems that returning to Philippines is feasible. However, the court should consider whether, when the assessor assessing my case, whether s/he fully understands my problems in the Filipino context.

2. The problems with TCAB during the assessment, as I mentioned in the basis of the claim is that TCAB seems not in the firm grasp of the context in Philippines. It seems that their only knowledge is through the COI and other general reports which are inadequate to understand the local context. In such cases, their assessment itself is already erroneous and that the procedure itself is problematic.

3. In the Human rights report of Philippines 2024 produced by U.S. Department of State states that Philippines is fraught with unlawful killing by police and armed individuals. The report says

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers by terrorists and groups in rebellion against the government; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence and threats of violence; and threats and violence against labor activists.”

4. As a result of the arguments above, I request the court grant leave to appeal.”

6.  The applicant was absent at the hearing on 29 January 2026. We dismissed his appeal with reasons to be handed down. Here is our reasons for the judgment.

Our reasons for decision

7.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

8.  Further, 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 is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

9.  However, his complaint that the Judge did not fully understand his problem in the Filipino context is not substantiated and remains a mere assertion which did not constitute any viable grounds of appeal. On support of his appeal, it is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. As to his complaint against the Board’s assessment of his claims, the Judge had already considered the applicant’s documents and his submissions and concluded that he did not find any errors of law committed by the Board. We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.