SANTOS DANIELA GALOS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 557/2026, [2026] HKCA 1312

On Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 3108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 557 OF 2026

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1021 OF 2023)

________________________

_____________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Ng J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court JudgeMichael Wong (“the Judge”) dated 27 May 2026[1] (“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 15 June 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The Applicant is a national of the Republic of the Philippines.  She made a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, she feared she would be harmed or killed by members of the New People’s Army.  Her claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 25 October 2021 and the appeal against the Director’s decision was rejected by the Board on 15 June 2023.  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.

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused by the Judge on 27 May 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 1 June 2026, the Applicant stated that:

“… the grounds of this appeal are that the Plaintiff will face hardship if he (sic) is to return back to his (sic) home country and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board has significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognized, 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 They have also relied on some cases which are outdated considering the dramatic changes.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 skeleton argument lodged on 17 June 2026, the Applicant merely cited various case law authorities on the requisite high standards of fairness and procedural fairness, without condescending upon particulars  as to how they were relevant to her own case.

6.  We heard the appeal on 21 July 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Tagalog interpreter and confirmed that she had nothing further to add.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

7.  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)]).

8.  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 below will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

9.  The matters raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton argument are all general, vague and bare allegations without particulars.  They do not constitute any valid grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision. General assertions of fear if refouled also do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify or substantiate 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.

11.  The Applicant’s appeal has no merit, and is dismissed.