LORENZO ROSALIE SANTIAGO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 625/2025, [2026] HKCA 163

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 625 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1129 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

Introduction

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Lewis Law (“the Judge”) dated 11 August 2025,[1] refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 29 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 25 March 2019 (the “Director’s Decision”).

The applicant’s claim and the Judge’s decision

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. In her non-refoulement claim form filed with the Immigration Department dated 28 January 2019, she lodged a claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband in the Philippines because she had a son with another man in Hong Kong. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board on 29 May 2020. A summary of the applicant’s background and her process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [1] – [4] of the Form CALL-1.

3.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge and details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can be found in the Form CALL-1.

The appeal

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 19 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court. For the grounds of appeal, the applicant stated that “I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court. They disregard my dangerous situation.”, but without providing any particulars or elaboration.

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 28 January 2026. Before the scheduled hearing, the applicant notified the court that she did not receive the notice of hearing and requested, and this court so granted, an indulgence to file her written submissions outside of the timeframe as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 8 December 2025.

6.  The applicant lodged her skeleton submissions on 19 January 2026, which can be summarised as follows:

(1)  the Director had failed to appreciate or give the proper importance or weight to the presence of state acquiescence in her case;

(2)  the Board acted unreasonably and was procedurally unfair by placing too much reliance on the Country of Origin information (“COI”) but failed to take into account her personal background and experience;

(3)  the Director failed to place sufficient weight on her COI which “supported the aversions that the police in his (sic) country would not be able to protect”.

7.  However, apart from her submissions above, the applicant did not indicate in her submissions any complaint against or identify any error made by the Judge in dismissing her application for leave to take out a judicial review.

8.  The applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter and had nothing to add to her written submissions.

Our reasons for decision

9.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst, at §14(6)).

10.  Further, the assessment of evidence, country of origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022. In the present case, the Judge found no such error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

11.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. The matters set out in the notice of appeal or her 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.

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