LACDO O MERLY ORTIZO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 507/2025, [2026] HKCA 688

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 507 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2646 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 extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 13 March 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 9 October 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend because she reported his drug activities to the police. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board. A summary of the applicant’s background and her process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [6] – [20] 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 not made within statutory timeframe of 3 months from the Board’s decision. After considering the length of the delay and the merits of the intended application, it was dismissed by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons 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) :-

“the grounds of this appeal are that the Applicant will face hardship if he is to return back to his home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the sources of news which is not officially recognised, or it is simply hearsay. They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes. The lack of credible source of information has resulted in them making groundless speculations.”

5.  In the applicant’s skeleton submissions lodged on 4 March 2026, she reiterated her claim and that her life would be at risk if refouled and that she would be tortured or killed her enemy. She asserted that :-

a. the Judge failed to apply the principles of rationality, procedural unfairness and high standards of fairness, and also failed to analyse her claims properly;

b. the Board failed to give her sufficient chance to arrange for the relevant evidence and failed to evaluate whether a consistent pattern of gross and mass violation of human rights in er home country;

c. the Board relied on source of news which is not officially recognised or was simply hearsay;

d. the Board failed to analyse and assess the issue of state protection in her home country.

6.  At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the applicant reiterated that her life is still in danger in the Philippines.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

7.  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 her submissions are not substantiated. Moreover, she had failed to provide any explanation for her late filing of her Form 86 either during the process before the Judge or in this appeal.

8.  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.

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