Responsive Ad Slot

>
Latest

Sponsored

Features

Buhay Pinay

People

Sports

Business Ideas for OFWs

Join us at Facebook!

Filipino family of 4 loses appeal to stop deportation

28 December 2024

 

The Court of Appeal hears cases in the High Court building

A family of four Filipinos has lost an appeal against a judge’s decision refusing them leave to apply for a judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision to deny their claim for non-refoulement, or against being sent back to the Philippines.

Lorenza A. Bool, her husband Jay and children Lander Jay and Jasmine Lei, have been fighting to remain in Hong Kong since 2017, claiming that their lives were in danger back in the Philippines because of their failure to repay a loan.

Later they argued that they cannot be sent home because Lander has a serious kidney problem that could worsen in the Philippines; and Jasmine needs to remain in Hong Kong to study.

PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE

But in a decision handed down on December 19, the Court of Appeal said it could only intervene if there were proper grounds raised. Mere assertions of fear, or concerns about the health of a family member, do not qualify as such.

In their notice of appeal filed on Oct. 16, 2023 the applicants “challenged the Director’s finding that there was no real risk of possible loss of life; that the Immigration Department was mistaken about the practice of moneylenders (loan sharks) in the Philippines, which are dangerous and are often politically affiliated and condoned by the police.”

 The applicants also said they did not wish to live in fear back in the Philippines, and are only after their children’s wellbeing.

Lorenza entered Hong Kong on Oct 1, 2016 as a visitor and should have left by Oct 15 in the same year, but decided to stay.

PINDUTIN DITO

Her husband and the two children came in also as tourists on Jan. 13, 2017, but likewise chose not to leave on or before their visas expired on Jan. 28 of the same year.

Between Feb.24 and March 31, 2017, the entire family lodged non-refoulement claims based on the risk of harm from the moneylenders.

By Feb 13, 2018 the Immigration Director dismissed the applicants’ non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds, including torture and persecution risk.

Basahin ang detalye!

The applicants jointly appealed the Director’s decision to the Board, and during an oral hearing of the application, Lorenza testified on behalf of the family. But on March 21, 2019 the Board dismissed the application and upheld the Director.

In rejecting the review bid, the Board pointed to a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicants’ statements which it said, “undermined the reliability of the applicants’ claims.”In particular, the Board noted Lorenza’s failure to recount how she was allegedly located by one of the moneylenders after she went into hiding.

The Board also rejected the claim about a loan being made, and of moneylenders still hot on their trail when the last time Lorenza had supposedly seen them was in October 2016; that the applicants had suffered physical or mental sufferings; and that the Philippine government refused to offer assistance to the family.

On the other hand, the Board was assured of the availability of state protection and internal relocation within the Philippines.

In affirming the judge's decision, the Court of Appeal said it could only intervene based on grounds advanced by the applicant.  “If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed,” said the court.

The CA also said it does not consider evidence that was not advanced before the Director of Immigration or the court below, or intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.

“In our view, the applicants’ case has no merit.  The applicants had failed to identify or show with specific particulars any error in the Judge’s Decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, or raise any viable ground of appeal against the Judge’s Decision.” said the CA.

“General assertions of fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal…The expressed health concerns of family members are also not proper grounds.  Their appeal must fail on the basis of lack of proper grounds of appeal alone.”

The decision was penned by Vice President Carlye Chu and affirmed by Vice President Susan Kwan.

PRESS FOR DETAILS
Don't Miss