RE GALANG JENNYLYN ESTRADA

CACV 17/2025, [2025] HKCA 558

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1269 OF 2024)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Andrew Chan J (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 KW Lung of 3 January 2025 in which he refused to grant extension of time to her to apply for leave to commence judicial review and dismissed her application for leave. 

2)  Background

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She entered Hong Kong in September 2017 as a domestic helper and was permitted to stay until September 2019 or within two weeks of termination of contract.  Her contract prematurely terminated in March 2019, and her stay was extended until June 2019 but she overstayed.  In February 2021, the applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim by written submission[1].

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim is that if she returns she would be harmed or killed by her creditor, ASKI[2].

4.  The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [3] to [4].

3)  The Director’s Decision

5.  The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’)  decided against the applicant’s claim on 18 November 2021.  The decision covered Bill of Rights Article 3 (torture/inhuman treatment)  risk (‘BOR 3’), Bill of Rights Article 2 (right to life)  risk (‘BOR 2’), as well as other statutory and convention rights against torture and persecution[3] (‘the Director’s Decision’).

4)  The Board’s Decision

6.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Board on 2 December 2021[4].  The Board gave notices to applicant to attend two hearings on 14 April 2022, 18 May 2022.  The applicant did not attend the hearings.  The Board considered the appeal on paper and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 8 September 2022 (‘the Board’s Decision’).

7.  The Board’s findings are summarized in the decision of the Judge at [7]-[9].

5)  Decision of the Judge

8.  The applicant filed her Form 86 and affidavit, and no specific grounds for seeking relief were provided nor had the applicant provided explanation for her delay[5].

9.  The Judge held that the Board was entitled to proceed to hear the appeal after due notice was given to the applicant. The Board had good reason to disbelieve the applicant[6].

6)  Grounds of appeal

10.  The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :

‘I want to appeal against the decision for my case.’

11.  The applicant’s written submission can be summarized as follows :

(1)  The applicant could not go back as she borrowed money from the agent;

(2)  The creditor threatened to kill the applicant if she returned;

(3)  The creditor called the applicant with death threat;

(4)  The creditor was powerful and has connections with the government;

(5)  Relocation was not possible as the applicant has no money.

7)  Our view

12.  We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  Her grounds of appeal and written submission consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics.  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.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law. 

14.  We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.