UY SHERYL ORTIGUERO as guardian ad litem of UY TRIXSHIELL CASSIE ORTIGUERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 100/2026

[2026] HKCFI 1366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 100 of 2026

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

1.   The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused;

2.   The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed; and

3.   Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court in these proceedings be treated as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The 1^st named applicant is the mother (“the mother”) of the 2^nd named applicant, (“the applicant”) in this application.

2.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 27 December 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 27 March 2024. Her application was filed on 8 January 2026 which is late for more than 1 year and 9 months. This issue will be dealt with below.

3.  The applicant did not request an oral hearing.

4.  Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

5.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She is an illegal immigrant. Acted by the mother, she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, the mother will be pursued by the bank, which had lent money to her, but she was unable to repay.   Details of her story are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000100_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

6.  The applicant’s claim relies on her mother’s facts, which the Board had rejected in the mother’s appeal. See HCAL 1137 of 2019, the mother’s application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decisions of her case.

The Director’s Decision

7.  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”).

8.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 12 January 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 13 January 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing. The mother had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

10.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   The Board did not accept the mother’s evidence for the reasons given. [73]-[84]

(2)   The Board did not accept the mother or her family had been threatened by the bank or the group of people of the bank. [89]

(3)   The Board did not accept that the applicant will be subjected to any of the applicable risks if she returns to the Philippines.

11.  For the above reasons, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s decision.

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

12.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 8 January 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.  In support of her application, the applicant’s mother has not raised any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

14.  As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of the intended appeal. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

15.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

16.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

17.  The Court bears in mind the decisions in Fabio Arlyn Timogan & Others v. Evan Ruth, Esq, Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2020] HKCV 971 and found that there was no child specific issue, which was not presented to the Board because of lack of legal representation for the applicant. To date, the mother has not raised any such child specific issue to the Court’s attention. See Re Penol Sally Barsolaso & Diggs Paul Derrick [2024] HKCA 790, Hon Chu VP and Barma JA.

18.  There is no valid reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

19.  The applicant therefore fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

20.  I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

21.  I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1