Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Merino Natividad Dangbis v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [Decision On Leave Application]

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date03 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1012
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCAL555/2019
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL555/2019 MERINO NATIVIDAD DANGBIS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 555/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 555 of 2019

BETWEEN

Merino Natividad Dangbis Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office		 Putative 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 documents only; or
consideration of documents and oral submission by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 22 February 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. Leave was given to the applicant to amend Form 86 by replace the Board with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as the interested party.

The applicant

3. The applicant is a Filipino national. She had been a domestic helper before and she commuted between China and Hong Kong after her employment in 2003. She last came to Hong Kong on 27 February 2005 as a visitor. She overstayed since 1 March 2005. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 24 August 2009. On 12 July 2013, she raised a non-refoulement claim.

4. She claimed that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her neighbouring family, in particular Antonio Almoza and his men.

5. The incidents took place as set out below.

a. In 2004, her mother had transferred a piece of land to her and there was document evidence in support of her ownership. She went to Hong Kong for sightseeing. Her mother told her that her neigbhour, Antonio Almoza harassed her for the land and advised her not to return to the Philippines.

b. Antonio kept on harassing her mother from time to time. Her mother had brought this to the attention of the head of the village, who had warned Antonio to stop harassing her. But Antonia turned a deaf ear to his words. She remained in Hong Kong and dared not return to the Philippines.

c. Her mother passed away in 2017. She had contact with her youngest daughter in the Philippines, who told her that Antonio kept threatening and harassing the family.

The Director’s Decision

6. Since she had lodged a torture claim similar to Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) and failed both before the Director and the Appeal Board, the Director considered her application in relation to the following risks:

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

b. 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

c. 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 Notice of Decision dated 18 May 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused her claim for the reason that her claim was not substantiated. The Director took the view that the level of risk upon her return to the Philippines was low [18]; state protection [21] and relocation [22] were available to her.

The Board’s Decision

8. The applicant appealed to the Board against the Director’s Decision. She attended a hearing before the Adjudicator on 17 January 2019.

9. By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

10. The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and was of the view that the applicant’s evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT