MANUDEN JAMES JR. COLLALONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1084/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5048

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1084 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 30 April 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.  The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

3.  Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. He is an illegal immigrant, having entered Hong Kong as a visitor, but overstayed since 30 January 2024.  He lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by a man called Ruben Alyang because he did not pay compensation in the sum of 1 million pesos for hitting Ruben’s son whilst he was driving his vehicle.  Ruben had threatened to kill him and had once shot at his home with a gun.

5.  Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision.  See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001084_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

6.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 27 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 27 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal.  He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.  Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   The Board had doubts that his story is truthful.  It did not accept that he will suffer harm if he returns to the Philippines.  [38]

(2)   His delay in lodging his application for protection cast doubts in his evidence –he arrived in Hong Kong in January 2024 and he made his claim in October 2024.  [39]

(3)   The Board considered as speculative and unpersuasive that Ruben would harm or pursued him upon his return to the Philippines, as there was no evidence as to why Ruben would do so several months after the accident and his son had recovered.  [42]

(4)   There is no reason why he cannot relocate to Sagada.  [43]

10.  For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 9 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  In his affidavit in support of his application, the applicant has not raised any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

13.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal.  The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board.  See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

15.  In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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.”

16.  It is obvious that the Board rejected the facts in support of the applicant’s claim. As such, his claim has no factual basis in support and the Board found internal relocation viable.  The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

17.  The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

18.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1