ROBLES MARIA CIRILA ATIENZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 206/2025, [2025] HKCA 907

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1321

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 3751 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1)  The appeal

1.  This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Philips Wong of 11 April 2025 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.  This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 17 September 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 29 July 2025 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly, by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She entered Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper under several employment contracts over the years, and her last employment contract was prematurely terminated in January 2017. She was arrested for fraud on 23^rd January 2017, then convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. On discharge, she expressed a willingness to return to the Philippines, and removal was arranged for her for 6 February 2018. However, on the same day, she lodged a non-refoulement claim[1].

4.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by a loan shark if she returned[2].

5.  The background facts have been summarised in the Board’s Decision at [8] to [16].

3)  The Director’s Decisions

6.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s torture claim on 10 May 2013.

7.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 21 December 2018.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk, Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed/petitioned against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’)[4].  After a hearing held on 9 September 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 12 December 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

9.  The Board’s findings are in the Board’s decision at [31]-[50].

5)  Decision of the Judge

10.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation but no grounds were provided in support of her application[5].

11.  The Judge held that he could not find any error of law in the Board’s decision. The Judge held that the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success. See the decision of the Judge at [7]-[9].

6)  Grounds of appeal

12.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated the following :

‘ I am not satisfied with the Judgment my case is real. I cannot go back home because my enemies still looking for me. I want to appeal against the decision with more information to prove my case is real.’

7)  Our view

13.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merit.  The grounds of appeal consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

14.  It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows that the Judge made any error of law.  

15.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.