RE BALAGOT CHRISTINE RAFANAN

CACV 282/2025, [2025] HKCA 1071

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1785

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 282 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 3721 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong (“the Judge”) dated 2 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1785) (“the Leave Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 2 December 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 14 August 2018, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [5] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also sets out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and the Judge’s reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [6] ‑ [25] of the Leave Decision.  We will not repeat the details herein.

3.  By the Notice of Appeal filed on 12 May 2025, the applicant mainly complained about the lack of language assistance and legal representation.  As a self-representing litigant, she claimed that she was unable to elaborate on any grounds as to the Leave Application.  She also complained that the Judge failed to consider her individual circumstances and difficulties.  The applicant also took issue with [13] of the Leave Decision[1], in that although the Duty Lawyer Scheme (“DLS”) advised her not to pursue her appeal, it is her legal right to pursue her appeal and took issue with the lack of legal representation.  She reiterated that she would face significant risk in the Philippines as her life would be in danger upon refoulement.

4.  The applicant also lodged written submissions in support of her appeal on 24 October 2025.  In those submissions, she argued that the Judge failed to properly scrutinise the Board’s assessment and misapplied the standard of review.  She again complained about the lack of legal and language assistance.  She further asserted that the Board’s findings were overly reliant on incomplete or insufficient Country of Origin information (“COI”) and failed to take into account her own personal circumstances, including her fear of harm from her previous spouse. The applicant also claimed that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting her claims.  She asserted that these amounted to procedural unfairness.

5.  We heard the appeal on 25 November 2025.  A Tagalog interpreter was present to provide language assistance.  During the hearing, she confirmed that she had nothing to add to her written materials.

DISCUSSION

6.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].

7.  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will 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’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review.  See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(6)].

8.  In light of the above, it is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out the errors in the Leave Decision with sufficient particulars and specifics.

9.  In our view, the present application is devoid of merit.  Her allegations are all vague, bare and general in nature.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, her complaints are mainly directed at the Board’s Decision and she fails to specifically identify errors in the Leave Decision.  Her submissions are essentially a repeat of those submissions advanced before the Judge, which the Judge had duly considered and rejected: see [7] ‑ [24] of the Leave Decision.  It is trite as a matter of law that an appeal against the refusal of leave by a judge in the Court of First Instance is not an occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration (supra) at [14(2)].  The applicant merely disagreed with the Judge’s observations, but failed to point out with specific particulars how the Judge had erred in law or on the facts.  Clearly, her assertions are not proper grounds of appeal and must fail.

10.  Specifically, regarding her complaints on the lack of language and legal assistance, we noted that all of the court documents filed by the applicant in this appeal as well as before the Judge are in English.  Clearly, the applicant is able to obtain assistance in English.  As noted by the Judge at [11] ‑ [14] of the Leave Decision, as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process and that the high standard of fairness required by law does not entail interpretation service being made available to an applicant all the time as she desires. Further, the applicant was also assisted by an interpreter during the hearing before the Board and was provided a fair opportunity to present her case and did so.  The Judge therefore has not erred in refusing her application.

11.  As to her allegations on the lack of reasons provided by the Board, these assertions clearly do not stand.  As observed by the Judge at [10] of the Leave Decision and evident from the Board’s Decision, the Board had considered her claims in detail, including the alleged risk of harm from her previous spouse, and gave detailed reasons in its decision.  The Judge had also given detailed reasons for rejecting the Leave Decision after thoroughly considering her case.  We see no procedural error or any basis to interfere with the Leave Decision.

12.  For the above reasons, the applicant’s appeal against the Leave Decision has no merit and is dismissed.