 |
| The High Court, where the Court of First Instance holds sessions |
The High Court refused to intervene in a non-refoulement case filed by a Filipino mother of a child she gave birth to out of wedlock in Hong Kong, who she claims faces death or cruel treatment by her husband if he is sent home to the Philippines.
J. Pascua, acting on behalf of K.Khan Pascua,
had appealed the decision of the director of Immigration and then the Torture
Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office which denied his asylum
claim.
In a decision rendered on Thursday on order by Deputy High Court Judge
K.W. Lung, Klein Tse of the Court of First Instance said the court’s role 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.”
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
“The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in
the Director and the Board,” it added.
The applicant’s claim relies on the facts of the mother, who
had lodged her own non-refoulement claim with the Immigration director, which
was rejected on Feb. 18, 2018.
“The mother appealed to the Board, which dismissed her appeal. She applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision dismissing her appeal. By Order dated 14 December 2022, this Court dismissed her application. She appealed. By Judgment dated 5 May 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. She filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. By Judgment dated 12 July 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed her Notice of Motion,” the decision said.
In her child’s case, the Immigration director found, in his decision
on Jan. 7, 2022, that his claims of being at risk of torture, death, inhuman
treatment and persecution were unsubstantiated.
The applicant appealed to the board, which in turn conducted
an oral hearing with his mother giving oral evidence for him.. “The duty lawyer
scheme refused to provide legal representation for the applicant because it
considered that there is no merit in the applicant’s application,” the decision
noted.
Among the Board’s findings was that the applicant “will not
be subjected to any real risk of harm from the mother’s husband or
discrimination or unfair treatment upon his return to the Philippines with the
mother,” the decision said.
Besides, “there are various government and non-government
support and assistance available for the mother and the applicant,” it added.
