ADVINCULA JUDITH COLUMBRES v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2894/2019

[2025] HKCFI 1302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2894 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 28 September 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision).

2.  The applicant requested an oral hearing. She appeared before the Court on 24 March 2025 and applied to withdraw her application because she wanted to return to the Philippines.

3.  The following information is for record that this Court had also considered the merits of her case.

The applicant

4.  The applicant, aged 56, is a national of the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper in 2017. Her contract was terminated prematurely. She did not depart and overstayed since 18 March 2018. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 March 2018 and lodged a non-refoulement by written signification dated 20 June 2018. She alleged that, if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband because she had had an affair with a Pakistani in Hong Kong and they had married in Pakistan in 2016.

5.  According to the applicant, she married her husband in around 1998. In 2016, she was working in Hong Kong and she fell in love with a Pakistani. In the same year, they went to Pakistan where they got married. She returned to the Philippines to visit her children in 2017. Her husband had notice of her affair with the Pakistani in Hong Kong. Subsequently, he checked her personal belongings and verified his belief. He was furious and had wounded her with a knife, cutting her neck. She was taken away by the neighbour and sent to hospital where she stayed a few days. She then returned to Hong Kong and dared not return to the Philippines.

The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

(a) risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

(b) risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

(c) risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

(d) risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.  By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Director found that her experience in the Philippines showed that her risk of being harmed or killed if she returns to the Philippines is low; that state protection will be available and that internal relocation will be viable.

The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 12 July 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing for her.

9.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board did not raise serious doubts on her evidence, but held that even if her evidence were true, her claim under the applicable risks would not succeed because the incident in the Philippines was a family dispute without any state involvement; that state protection will be available and that internal relocation is viable. [24]-[33]

10.  For the above reasons, the Board dismissed her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 2 October 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  The applicant has raised the grounds below in support of her application:

(a) the Board did not focus its attention on the facts that she is unable to return to the Philippines;

(b) procedural impropriety: failing to pay heed to BOR 2 risk; failing to make inquiry into the country of origin information (COI); paying too much attention to the COI without understanding her personal situation;

(c) errors/misdirection in law: failing to consider her danger if she returns to the Philippines because her husband can trace her; failing to consider state acquiescence; failing to take into account of corruption in her country; failing to consider her submissions and unreasonably demanded her to answer questions she was unable to respond;

(d) no sufficient basis to conclude that her family would not be tortured; and the Board’s Decision is irrational.

DISCUSSION

13.  Since the applicant has applied for withdrawal of her application, her grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision are irrelevant.

DISPOSITION

14.  I accede to her request. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.