HCAL 1796/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1796 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

Judgment

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 3 June 2019 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board’s Decision”).

2. The applicant requested an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), she appeared before the Court on 8 July 2024.

The applicant

3. The applicant, aged 45, is a Filipino. She last arrived in Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper on 2 January 2016. Her employment contract was pre-maturely terminated on 14 August 2017 and she overstayed since 29 August 2017. The applicant surrendered to the Immigration Department on 4 September 2017 and she made a non-refoulement claim on 3 January 2018. The claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be seriously harmed or even killed by her husband.

4. According to the applicant, in 2010/2011, she saw on Facebook that a woman was communicating with her husband. She later found out that the woman had been having an extramarital affair with her husband and they even had a baby. The applicant therefore confronted her husband when she returned to the Philippines in 2011 and their marital relationship deteriorated rapidly. The applicant claimed that she had separated with her husband and moved to live in her mother’s house with her children since 2010. Between 2011 and 2013, whenever her husband came to visit the children, they would have arguments, which sometimes turned into fights.

5. In January 2015, when the applicant was celebrating New Year’s Eve at her parents-in-law’s house, her husband got drunk and repeatedly asked her to get back to him. Upon her refusal, her husband pointed a gun at her and accused her for having an affair in Hong Kong (“gun pointing incident”). The applicant believed that her husband was falsely accusing her because he wanted to twist the situation around. Since then until she returned to Hong Kong around 6 January 2015. Whenever she met her husband, they would end up in serious arguments/fights. There was even an occasion when her husband pushed her so hard that her head almost hit on a concrete wall. Upon the applicant’s return to Hong Kong, she kept receiving messages from her husband that he would kill her upon her return.

6. The applicant considered internal relocation not viable because her husband was a civil servant, so that he could utilise his network to locate her easily. She also claimed that she lacked financial resources for relocation. Meanwhile, the applicant had never sought help from the police because her husband had connections with them.

7.