 |
| People who get arrested for illegal work or overstaying are among those in the watchlist |
If you are a foreign domestic worker who was
sentenced after conviction for a criminal case committed in Hong Kong, think
twice before attempting to apply for work again here.
This is not just because of Hong Kong’s new policy
requiring all new entrants, including FDHs, to declare their criminal past
starting on July 19, although this in itself is making those who had a previous
brush with the law nervous. It is more because Immigration has started restricting
the re-entry of those who had been sent home after being sentenced for an
infraction, no matter how slight.
Consul Paulo Saret, head of the assistance to
nationals section of the Philippine Consulate, said it would be better for
those who had been sent home after being found guilty of a crime to carefully
consider if it is worth risking an attempt to come back.
“Marami po
kasi ang mga na A to A (airport to airport) ngayon,” said Saret. (There’s been
quite a number of people who ended up traveling from one airport to another
recently).
He made the statement when asked if a Filipina who
was sent home last December after being meted a suspended four-month jail term
for lying to an immigration officer and giving false particulars, could come
back as there is an employer willing to sign her up.
The strict new policy appears to apply even for
those who were sentenced for a slight misdemeanor.
In the case of M, the Filipina, Immigration
recognized that she had been a victim of a rogue employment agency owner who
tricked her into coming to Hong Kong despite knowing that the employer who
signed the contract had already left the city.
This was compounded when the agent told M to apply for
a Hong Kong ID card using the fake contract, and then making her go back to
Immigration to present a termination letter from the supposed employer.
The agent was subsequently jailed for six months but
M was convicted as well of three charges of violating her visa condition and
lying to an immigration officer as she pleaded guilty to them early on,
thinking it would hasten her return home. Little did she know that her conviction would stick with her, and prevent her from re-applying for a domestic helper job in Hong Kong.
Recently, M applied to work in Taiwan as a
caregiver, but after her papers were processed, the elderly woman she was
supposed to look after died, leading to the cancellation of her contract, and leaving
her hopes of going abroad to work dashed yet again.
The apparent crackdown by Immigration on FDWs with a
criminal record was first noted by solicitors Arthur Chan and Jasmine Kwong of Boase,
Cohen and Collins, in an article published in November 2021.
In the article, the authors cited the case of an
Indonesian domestic worker whose application for a renewal of her work contract
was denied in January of the same year, after Immigration noted she had been convicted
of theft in September 2020 for which she was fined $800.
In its decision rejecting the application for contract
renewal, the Director said the helper failed to meet the criteria given in the ‘Guidebook for Employment of Domestic
Helpers from Aboard.’
The helper and employer
appealed to the Director to reconsider, stating that the conviction was “very insignificant”
and should have been spent in two years. The helper was also said to have shown
remorse for what she did. In addition, the letter said
the employer had a medical condition that made her vulnerable during the
pandemic, and that the helper had already developed a bond with the family she
was serving.
But the Director stood firm in his decision, so the case was taken to the High Court, where it was again rejected. In his decision, Justice
Russel Coleman said the Director of Immigration was within his rights to refuse
the application based on the criteria cited in the Guidebook, and that internal
memos in the Department showed he had considered the employer’s circumstances.
While the solicitors conceded that the court merely reiterated the long-standing policy of
allowing the Director discretion in the granting of FDH visas, its decision opened the
door wide open to questions such as, if a non-recordable offence such as
careless driving could be held against a helper with driving duties.
“Further, there remains
uncertainty over spent convictions, since the objective of these is to allow an
offender to put a past mistake behind them. In the highlighted case, can the
helper re-apply once her conviction is spent?,” asked the solicitors.
They also suggested that
adopting such stringent rules could lead helpers with a minor conviction to consider
overstaying because of the possibility that their employment visa will not be renewed.
.png)
