Ticuala, Isabel Magna Say-eo v Immigration Department [Decision On Leave Application]

CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date03 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 986
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
Judgement NumberHCAL473/2018

HCAL 473/2018

[2020] HKCFI 986






Ticuala, Isabel Magna Say-Eo Applicant
Immigration Department Putative Respondent

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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


consideration of the documents only; or
consideration of the documents and the Applicant being present / absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

1. extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review ofthe decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 3 March 2017 refused; and

2. leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed.

It is further directed that:

3. if the Applicant intends to appeal against the order refusing to extend the period for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal, she must first apply to this court within 14 days of the date of this order by way of summons for leave to appeal;

4. when filing the application for leave to appeal, the Applicant must at the same time file with the court written submissions of not more than 5 pages in support of the application for leave to appeal;

5. the court will thereafter decide whether it is necessary to direct the summons and the written submissions to be served on the putative respondent(s) and whether the application for leave to appeal shall be determined on paper;

6. if the court decides that the application for leave to appeal shall be determined on paper, it will proceed to do so without further directions; and

7. liberty to apply.

Observations for the Applicant:

1. The Applicant is a 42-year-old national of the Philippines who last arrived in Hong Kong on 15 March 2006 with permission to continue to work as a foreign domestic helper until the expiration of her then employment contract on 25 March 2007 or within 14 days of its early termination. However, when her contract was prematurely terminated on 26 August 2006, she did not depart and instead overstayed and was arrested by police on 11 April 2009. After she was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, she raised a torture claim on the basis that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her creditors for failing to repay her loans, and when her torture claim was rejected, she raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the same basis. She was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of her claim.

2. The Applicant was born and raised in Kayan, Tadian, Mountain Province, the Philippines. After leaving school she worked as a domestic helper, married her husband in 1999 and moved to live with him in Eastern Buyagan, La Trinidad, Benquet.

3. In 1996 the Applicant decided to seek employment in Korea and borrowed a loan from her aunt to pay the employment agent and related expenses, but when it turned out unsuccessful, she asked her aunt to allow her to delay her repayment so that she could apply for employment in China.

4. To finance her second application, she borrowed a loan from a local money‑lender to pay the employment agent for her application to China, but when that also turned out to be unsuccessful, she borrowed a third loan from another money-lender for her application to work as a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong, which was successful and so in 1997 she departed for Hong Kong to start her employment there.

5. However, notwithstanding her plan to make monthly remittances from her salary to the Philippines for her loans repayments, she found it impossible to spare any money to do so due to her other financial commitments towards her family that she was in fact unable to repay any of her loans, and as a result the money-lenders had threatened to kill her when she returned to the Philippines, while her aunt had confiscated her mother’s house in the Philippines as part repayment of the loan after her mother had passed away.

6. Due to the death threats from her creditors, the Applicant was afraid to return home after her last employment contract was terminated in 2006, and upon her arrest for overstaying in Hong Kong, she raised her torture claim, and when that was rejected by the Immigration Department, she then sought non-refoulement protection by completing a Supplementary Claim Form on 26 May 2015 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Re Ticuala Isabel Magna Say-eo
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 15 March 2021
    ...(Carlye Chu) (S T Poon) Justice of Appeal Judge of the Court of First Instance The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person. [1] [2020] HKCFI 986. The Notice of Appeal mistakably referred to the decision dated 27 August 2020 which extended the time to appeal (see [11] [2] This refers to th......

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