By The SUN
 |
| The appeals court said the Philippines can protect the appellants and provide them needed services |
A former Filipina domestic helper seeking asylum in Hong
Kong, together with her two minor sons, have lost their appeal against a
decision denying them the right to challenge Immigration’s decision to send
them home to the Philippines.
In the decision handed down on Oct 30, the Court of Appeal
upheld a lower court’s decision denying Melody Piedad Mangoba and her two Hong
Kong-born sons Kobe
and Kyler Galang, the right to question their deportation.
The CA, through Justice Maria Yuen and Judges Lisa Wong ang
ST Poon, ruled that Court of First Instance Judge Amanda Woodcock did not err
in finding that the Torture Claims Adjudication Board and Immigration had fully considered
the grounds cited by the appellants.
Mangoba, who is married with two children in the Philippines, arrived in Hong
Kong in 1997 to work as a domestic helper. Shortly after, she
began a relationship with JG, a fellow Filipino domestic helper. When her
husband found out about this, he assaulted her. They separated in 2001.
In 2004 Mangoba’s employment contract was terminated but she
did not return to the Philippines.
The next year, she gave birth to Kobe
from her relationship with JG. She had another son by him, Kyler, in 2012.
Mangoba had initially claimed she did not want to be sent
back to the
Philippines
because she feared the wrath of her estranged husband, who she said used to
be a member of the New People’s Army and had been violent towards her. The man
had also allegedly threatened her parents.
In addition, Mangoba said Kobe was suffering from autism and Kyler from
heart problems. Both were being looked after under Hong
Kong’s education and health care systems.
In 2011 she filed a torture claim for herself and Kobe which the
Immigration Director rejected on Jul 14 that same year. She appealed, but it
was rejected the next month.
On July 5, 2017, or five years after Kyler was born, she and
her two sons filed a claim for non-refoulement, or against being sent home.
Taking note of their claim, Immigration representatives
interviewed Mangoba, who was assisted by counsel. But after the interviews, the
Director concluded that mother and sons failed to make out a case for
non-refoulement.
In his decision issued on Aug 8, 2017, the Director found no
basis for Kyler’s claim for risk of persecution or torture. Mangoba’s and Kobe’s claims were
already rejected in the earlier decision by the Director issued on Aug 29,
2011.
The three then went to the Torture Claims Adjudication Board
(TCAB) to appeal the Director’s decision.
But after re-assessing the claims and making its own inquiry
into the availability of services in the country of origin (the Philippines)
the TCAB also rejected the applications.
While the TCAB accepted that Mangoba’s husband posed a real
threat to her and her sons, it found out that the Philippines does provide state
protection in cases of domestic violence.
The Board also pointed out that the appellants could always
relocate to other areas in the Philippines,
away from the reach of Mangoba’s husband. The TCAB did not accept that the
husband could use NPA resources to hunt them down.
Further, the TCAB found out that Kobe
and Kyler could have the educational and medical services they needed in the Philippines.
“As a result the TCAB did not accept that there was a real
risk that the 2 children would suffer serious or significant harm upon their
return to the Philippines,”
said the judgment.
Failing at this level, the three applied to the High Court
for leave to apply for a judicial review of the TCAB’s decision.
But after careful consideration of the TCAB’s decision,
Judge Woodcock refused the application.
“A
reading of her (adjudicator’s) decision shows that she gave full consideration
to the evidence, COI information and provided more than adequate reasons for
her findings,” said Judge Woodcock.
“I found
no failings on the part of the adjudicator. I found no errors of law nor
any evidence of procedural unfairness. She did not fail to adhere to a
high standard of fairness. There is no realistic prospect of success and
I refuse leave to apply for judicial review.”
Her findings were upheld by the Court of Appeal, which said
that the appellants failed to point out any errors in law or any other relevant
matters the judge may have failed to consider.
I-try mo ito, Kabayan: Kung interesado kang ma-contact ang mga advertiser namin dito, pindutin lang ang kanilang ad, at lalabas ang auto-dialer. Pindutin ulit upang tumawag. Hindi na kailangang pindutin ang mga numero.
