 |
| The High Court |
Five Filipinos who appealed to the High Court the disapproval of their claims to non-refoulement, or against being sent back to their countries of origin, found out last week that their fear of personal harm was not enough to give them asylum in Hong Kong.
In separate decisions, the High Court rejected appeals for judicial review of the following:
- Mary Ann Siervo, who sought refuge in Hong Kong after she overstayed when she did not leave as required when her contract as domestic helper expired on Dec. 27, 2021. She claimed she feared she would be harmed or killed by her abusive husband over their domestic disputes if she returned to the Philippines.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
- Jenelyn Tecson, who overstayed after her DH contract as terminated on March 2, 2021, and was arrested on April 21, 2021. She claimed she would be harmed or killed by her boyfriend over her affair with another man in Hong Kong.
- Jecel Gardose, who stayed after the completion of her employment contract on 27 March 2021, and surrendered to the Immigration Department on July 19, 2021. She claimed that if she returned to the Philippines she would be harmed or killed by her former boyfriend for leaving him and ending their relationship.
- Charles Johnson Macasulot, who did not leave after termination of his work contract, and claimed that he will be harmed or killed by his father-in-law if he returned to the Philippines because he had an extra-marital affair with another woman in Hong Kong.
 |
| PINDUTIN DITO |
- Pinic Anita, who overstayed after termination of her employment contract and surrendered later to the Immigration Department, where she lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that she will be harmed or killed by a creditor because she was unable to repay her debt.
All five were appealing the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which sided with the decision of the Immigration Department to junk their applications because they did not meet the requirements of the internationally-accepted Unified Screening Mechanism to screen refugees.
These requirements are risk of torture, risk to right to life, risk of torture or inhuman treatment and risk of persecution “on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
The Board rulings were one in searching for “real risks” in the applications and found none. The five High Court decisions concurred with the rulings.
Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in the first three cases asserted: “… in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.”
Added Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung: “The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the (Immigration) Director and the Board.”
