|
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.
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.
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.
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.