RAMOS EDELYN RODRIGUEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 587/2025, [2026] HKCA 872

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 2820

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 587 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3187 OF 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

The Court:

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 31 July 2025 (“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 17 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 15 July 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”).

BACKGROUND

2.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines.  She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her abusive husband Jayson, and a rapist. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director’s Decision, and her appeal against it was rejected by the Board’s Decision. A summary of the applicant’s background and her process before the Director and the Board can be found under paragraphs [3] – [11] of the judgment dated 31 July 2025 (“the Judgment”).

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 are set out under paragraphs [12] ‑ [17] of the Judgment.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

4.  By a notice of appeal filed on 8 August 2025, the applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court on the grounds that (sic) :-

“There are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in both decisions from the Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration hence, I want the decisions be overturned as my fear has caused me mental torture.”

5.  The appeal was scheduled to be heard on 23 March 2026. The applicant has failed to lodge any skeleton argument in support of her appeal in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 12 February 2026. Accordingly, the applicant is deemed to have waived her right to have an oral hearing of the appeal, and elected to have the appeal disposed of on paper. The applicant was informed of the same by the court’s letter dated 11 March 2026.

DISCUSSION & DISPOSITION

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.

8.  In the present case, the Judge found no error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. The mere assertions as stated in her grounds of appeal are not substantiated with any specific information or elaboration as to how they apply to her present appeal.

9.  It is incumbent on the applicant to point out the Judge's errors with sufficient particulars and specifics. In our view, the matters set out in the applicant’s notice of appeal 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.

10.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits. We dismiss it accordingly.