PALAO ROSITA BORJA V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
Outcome
Leave to appeal refusedleave to apply for judicial review is refused.
Source: [2024] HKCFI 795, Court of First Instance, decided 14 March 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
Palao Rosita Borja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 795 concerned a Philippine former domestic helper who had overstayed her permit and raised a non-refoulement claim assessed against all four USM grounds. Because she had named the adjudicator personally as respondent, the Court of First Instance granted leave to amend the Form 86 to substitute the Board, and she was absent from the scheduled hearing. The Court held that 'leave to apply for judicial review is refused.' The decision was later cited in a series of non-refoulement judicial review applications, including Rashed Joarder Alias Rashed Rashedul Islam Rashed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 3062 and Nawaz Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2025] HKCFI 3424.
What did the Court of First Instance decide in Palao Rosita Borja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCFI 795?
In Palao Rosita Borja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2024] HKCFI 795, the Court of First Instance refused leave to apply for judicial review after the applicant, who did not attend the hearing, had her non-refoulement claim assessed under all four USM grounds.
Why was leave granted to amend the Form 86 in this case ([2024] HKCFI 795)?
In Palao Rosita Borja v. Torture Claims Appeal Board [2024] HKCFI 795, leave was granted to amend the Form 86 because the applicant had originally named the adjudicator personally as respondent; the amendment substituted the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the correct respondent.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (2)
Cited By (8)
Citation influence
HKLII records this judgment as cited by 8 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.
Read on HKLIISource: HKLII ([2024] HKCFI 795)