RE UY SHERRY ANN SORIANO

CACV 118/2022

[2022] HKCA 1500

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2642 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (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 K W Lung of 7 March 2022 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 30 August 2022, the applicant has filed into this Court a request for dismissal of the notice of appeal filed on 12 April 2022.

2)    Factual background

3.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She last entered Hong Kong as a domestic helper and was allowed to stay but overstayed.  The applicant raised her non‑refoulement claim in June 2013 on her fear that she would be harmed or killed by her stepfather, alleging that he had assaulted and raped her.

4.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [5].

3)    The Director’s Decisions

5.  The Director decided against the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim on 26 February 2015.  The Decision covered Bill of Rights (‘BOR’) Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment) (‘BOR 3’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution (‘the Director’s Decision’).

6.  The Director decided against the applicant’s right to life claim on 16 May 2017 (‘the Director’s Further Decision’).  The Director’s Further Decision covered Article 2 (right to life) of the Bill of Rights (‘BOR 2’).

4)    The Board’s Decision

7.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board, where the Board also considered the Director’s Further Decision in its assessment.  An oral hearing was conducted on 14 August 2018.  The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 13 November 2018 and the Director’s Decision and the Director’s Further Decision were affirmed.

8.  The Board held that the applicant’s evidence before the Board was inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence before the Director.  The Board did not accept the applicant as a truthful witness.  The Board found it difficult to accept that the applicant lived with the alleged rapist for three months.  The Board does not accept that the applicant was raped and cut by her stepfather.  The Board does not accept that there is a real chance of harm for the applicant to return to the Philippines.

5)    Decision of the Judge

9.  In his decision dated 7 March 2022, the Judge held that there was no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s decision.  There was no error of law or procedural unfairness.  

6)    Grounds of appeal

10.  In the applicant’s notice of appeal, she simply stated that she wanted to challenge the decision.

11.  In her written submissions, she repeated that her life is not safe because of her stepfather.

7)    Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  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]. 

13.  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.

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision. For the reasons above, and pursuant to the applicant’s request for dismissal of the appeal, we dismiss the applicant’s notice of appeal dated 12 April 2022.