PINANA ELLYN CASTRONUEVO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1213/2024
[2025] HKCFI 6014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1213 of 2024
BETWEEN | ||
| Pinana Ellyn Castronuevo | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / | Putative | |
| Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office | Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative | |
| Interested Party | ||
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 the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;
Order by Deputy High Court JudgeLevy:
1. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.
2. There shall be no extension of time be granted to the applicant for the filing of the Form 86.
3. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Background
1. By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 26 July 2024, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 20 June 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 17 January 2023 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision is set out in the following hyperlink: -
2. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Philippines, she would be harmed or killed by her husband due to her extra-marital affair in Hong Kong. The reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant has requested for an oral hearing. On 30 July 2025, the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (2) of the Immigration Department faxed a letter to the court, informing the court that the applicant would like to withdraw her judicial review application. Enclosed with the said letter was the applicant’s signed memo in English dated 25 July 2025. In the memo, the applicant stated that she would like to withdraw the Leave Application as her issues at home had been resolved and she could return home. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Leave Application on paper.
4. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision, nor were such grounds identified in the Form 86 or otherwise. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[1].
5. Another matter I need to consider is the delay. Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date when the Board Decision was delivered. The applicant was late for almost 1 year, which was substantial. In the absence of any explanation for the length delay, I’d be disinclined to grant leave for extension of time.
Withdrawal application
6. Apart from the application to withdraw the Leave Application referred to above, there is nothing outstanding in this action. In the circumstances, I make an order to dismiss the Leave Application, and hereby order the dismissal of the Leave Application: see Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471; Ngo Xuan Tuyen v Torture Claims Appeal Board[2024] HKCA 1140.
Orders
7. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.
8. There shall be no extension of time be granted to the applicant for the filing of the Form 86.
9. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 17th day of December 2025
| ( Alfred CHAN ) for Registrar, High Court |
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
| Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must: | ||||
| a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). | Sent to the Applicant on 17/12/2025 Pinana Ellyn Castronuevo Applicant’s ref. no: Nil. | Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 17/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 21488 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1230/22 (formerly RBCZ 5001121/22) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1