|
CACV 592/2026, [2026] HKCA 1359
On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 592 OF 2026
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 130 OF 2023)
________________________
BETWEEN
|
PALAO SHILLA MAY RUBIO
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
|
Putative Respondent
|
|
and
|
|
|
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
|
Putative Interested Party
|
_____________________
| Before: |
Hon Anthony Chan JA and Ng J in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
28 July 2026 |
| Date of Judgment: |
12 August 2026 |
_____________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________
Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
Introduction
1. This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of DHCJ
(Non-refoulement Claims) Martin Wong (“the Judge”) dated 3 June 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to
grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement
Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 November 2022 (“the Board’s Decision”).
Background
2. The Applicant is a national of the Philippines. She lodged a
non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by loan sharks from whom she
had borrowed money to fund her business. The Applicant’s claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration
(“the Director”) on 29 November 2021, and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the
Board on 23 November 2022. Details of the Applicant’s claim and the Board’s reasons for rejecting the
Applicant’s appeal can be found in the Board’s Decision, the hyperlink to which can be found in the CALL-1 Form
dated 3 June 2026.
3. The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial
review was refused by the Judge on 3 June 2026. Details of the Judge’s reasons for refusing to grant leave can
be found in the CALL-1 Form.
Grounds of Appeal
4. In the Notice of Appeal filed on 8 June 2026, the Applicant
stated the following:
“I don’t agree with the order. I want to appeal agains. I m pleading to the court of appeal to
review my application The decision is unreasonable.” (sic)
5. In the 1-page skeleton argument filed on 15 July 2026, apart
from reiterating her non-refoulement claim, the Applicant essentially argues that the decisions of the Director
and Board are unreasonable without any particulars or explanation.
Legal Principles
6. 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
was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).
7. 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 are errors of law or
procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.
Discussion and Disposition
8. The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and
skeleton argument are all general allegations without particulars. They do not constitute any valid
grounds of appeal against the Order.
9. The Applicant has failed to identify or show any error in the
Judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal
against the Order.
10. The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.
(Anthony Chan)
Justice of Appeal |
(Peter Ng)
Judge of the Court of
First Instance |
The Applicant, acting in person
|