CACV 11/2024, [2024] HKCA 371
On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2024
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 321 OF 2019)
____________________
| RE : | ABELIDO ROWENA RUMBAOA | Applicant |
____________________
| Before : | Hon Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J in Court |
| Date of Hearing : | 17 April 2024 |
| Date of Judgment : | 26 April 2024 |
____________________
JUDGMENT
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (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 Bruno Chan of 5 January 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.
2) Background
2. The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She last entered Hong Kong in March 2015 as a domestic helper but her contract was prematurely terminated in June 2015 and she overstayed[1]. She made a non-refoulement claim by written representation in November and December 2017[2].
3. The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she would be harmed or killed by her husband’s creditor, Manny Mamba and his followers, because she was unable to repay the loan obtained by her husband[3]. Manny Mamba was a powerful politician. His family was influential. The applicant and her husband were threatened to be killed for failing to repay. She fled from her hometown to Manila. Eventually she arrived in Hong Kong to work. Manny Mamba’s followers killed her husband eventually. She feared that if she returns she would be harmed or killed by Manny Mamba or his subordinates.[4]
4. The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [2] to [7].
3) The Director’s decision
5. The Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) decided against the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on 6 August 2018. 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[5] (‘the Director’s Decision’).
4) The Board’s decision
6. The applicant appealed against the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (‘the Board’) on 17 August 2018. After a hearing held on 9 January 2019, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 January 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’).
7. The Board found material inconsistences and discrepancies[6] in the applicant’s claim that it doubted her claim of fear of harm from her husband’s creditor and followers that caused her to overstay in Hong Kong to seek protection, that in any event it was a private monetary dispute between her husband and his creditor without any official involvement, that state or police protection would be available to the applicant upon her return to the Philippines as well as reasonable internal relocation for her to move safely to other part of the country away from her home district without any risk of being located, and that her claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds[7].
5) Decision of the Judge
8. The applicant filed her Form 86 and affirmation containing various grounds[8] of challenge set out in the Judge’s decision at [13].
9. The Judge held on 5 January 2024 that the grounds relied upon by the applicant are vague and bare assertions containing a few key words or phrases but without any relevant or necessary particulars or specifics as to how they apply to her case or how the Board erred. The Judge held that the grounds relied upon by the applicant were not reasonably arguable[9].
6) Grounds of appeal
10. The applicant in the notice of appeal stated that :
‘ I want to Appeal the decision because I do not agree with the Judge Decision.’
11. The applicant in her written submission stated the following in summary :
(1) She has life threat in her country;
(2) Her enemy was very powerful and influential;
(3) She has no way to return because her enemy will kill her; and
(4) She did not get the High Court decision. She applied for extension of time. The time was not extended. At least she came to the Court of Appeal to extend time.
12. It is noted that it is factually incorrect for the applicant to state that she had applied for extension of time in the High Court. None was applied for.
7) Our view
13. We are of the view that the applicant’s grounds of appeal and written submissions consist of bare allegations without particulars or specifics. The appeal is without merits. 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 that the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu[2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].
14. It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Deputy Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision. None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Deputy Judge has made any error of law.
15. We see no basis to disturb the Deputy Judge’s decision. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal | (Lisa Wong)
Judge of the
Court of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, appearing in person
[1] Director’s Decision at [7];
[2] Director’s Decision at [1];
[3] Director’s Decision at [2];
[4] Board’s Decision at [14];
[5] Director’s Decision at [10];
[6] Board’s Decision at [78], [79], [95]-[101], [111]-[113], [122]-[123], [154],[158]-[162], [164]-[166], [170]-[171];
[7] Judge’s decision at [12];
[8] Form CALL-1 at [13];
[9] Form CALL-1 at [14];