ACHAY EDITHA TIIW v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 434/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 434 of 2023

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 21 March 2023 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 14 February 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Affidavit in support of the Leave Application (the “Affidavit”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and raised various grounds in support of her Leave Application.

3.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 15 June 2026 (the “Hearing”). At the Hearing, the Applicant said that she does not have anything to add orally.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and the arguments she advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

5.  In the Affidavit in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant raised some grounds in support of the Leave Application. I will summarise them below:

a.  The Applicant took a loan from a loan shark named Moreno which she used for her parents’ medical expenses. The Applicant has failed to repay the above loan and the loan shark will kill her if she does not repay.

b.  The Board did not consider the Applicant’s claim and dismissed it without regard to the risk of the Applicant’s life;

c.  The Board did not accept the Applicant’s supporting documents as they were written in the Applicant’s mother language which the Board did not understand;

d.  The Board did not grant the Applicant sufficient time to have her documents translated into English and to prepare for the hearing;

e.  The interpreter did not assist the Applicant properly. When the Applicant indicated that she did not understand, the interpreter became angry;

f.  The interpreter urged the Applicant not to prolong the interview as he had another job.

6.  The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

7.  Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

8.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and her grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing her claim for non-refoulement protection. On the facts, the Board found that various important aspects of the Applicant’s case to be incredible, including her assertions that she has owed money to a loan shark for 6 years, or that she was in genuine fear of serious harm from the loan shark. In addition, the Board considered that there were internal relocation options available to the Applicant: see the Board’s Decision paras. 31-37. On the above bases, the Board found that the Applicant would not face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[2] if she returns to Philippines and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 38-56. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.  As to the grounds raised in the Affidavit:

a.  In paragraph 5a above, the Applicant simply repeated her assertions which have been rejected by the Board, see para. 8 above;

b.  With respect to paragraph 5b above, as I have explained in para. 8 above, the Board had thoroughly considered the Applicant’s case before reaching the Board’s Decision;

c.  As to paragraphs 5c and 5d above, the Applicant only made bare assertions that the Board did not consider documents submitted by her and did not allow her time to translate the documents into English. She has failed to put forward any particulars of the alleged documents or how the alleged documents would be relevant to her case. Rather, as recorded in paragraph 23 of the Board’s Decision, the Board had expressly asked the Applicant if she had obtained the documents which she mentioned in the Notice of Appeal but she said that she had not done so;

d.  As to paragraphs 5e and 5f above, these were again bare assertions made by the Applicant. As recorded in paragraphs 6, 23-30 of the Board’s Decision, the Applicant was assisted by suitable interpretation and responded to the Board’s questioning without any issue. There is no record in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had raised any complaint against the interpreter during the hearing before the Board.

10.  Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23. I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

11.  For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave 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