By Daisy CL Mandap
 |
| The 3 torture cases are the latest in a series of applications or appeals rejected by the High Court |
Three Filipinos
seeking to stop their deportation to the Philippines–
one a supposed NPA member, another a target of a murderous drug dealer, and a
third, an eyewitness to a rape case – all failed to convince the High Court to
back their bids to remain in Hong Kong .
Two failed to
secure leave or permission to challenge the decision of the Torture Claims
Appeal Board denying their non-refoulement (or against being sent back home)
claim, while the other lost his appeal against a High Court judge’s decision
affirming the same order.
The judgment in
the appeal case was handed down on May 2, while the decisions in the two leave
to appeal applications were promulgated on Apr 24 and 30.
Among the three
failed applicants is Gomer D Galiza, 33, who claimed that he feared the NPA
(New People’s Army) in the Philippines Hong
Kong legally on Dec 30, 2014 but overstayed, and was arrested on
Feb 11, 2015. He filed for non-refoulement two days after his arrest.
Since then, he
has been fighting to remain in Hong Kong , and
his latest court application was for leave for judicial review of the TCAB’s
decision on Jan 22 this year denying his challenge to the Director of
Immigration’s decision against granting his refoulement claim.
The second
applicant is Richard O. Garrillo, 39, who claimed he would be harmed or killed
by a drug dealer named Noel because he had reported him to the police in the Philippines
Garrillo, who
worked as a domestic helper between January 2001 and January 2002, said that on
his return home, he accompanied a cousin who was a drug dependent to the police
to report the drug dealer. But instead of arresting Noel, Garrillo said the police
arrested and assaulted him and his cousin.
Garrillo
said that while he was in Hong Kong on Dec 23,
2002 he learned that his cousin was killed, so fearing for his life back home, he
decided to remain until he overstayed his visa on Dec 29 that year.
He
remained illegally in Hong Kong for more than
six years, until his arrest on Jan 18, 2009. He filed a torture claim the next
day.
In
August that year he abandoned his claim, saying he had resolved his problem.
However, on Dec 18, 2010, he applied for his claim to be reopened, saying Noel
had just been released from prison and could harm him if he went back home.
His
torture application went to both the Immigration Director and the TCAB, which
both denied the claim. On Apr 10 this year, the TCAB refused to grant him leave
to appeal its decision.
In
the meantime, Garillo claimed his father was murdered by Noel in 2015, while
his brother was killed by the police in 2017.
The third case
involves Juanito G. Portillo, who failed in his appeal against a decision by
Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam denying his application for judicial review
against the TCAB’s judgment on Feb 27 rejecting his refoulement claim.
Portillo had
sought to convince both the Immigration Director and TCAB that he should not be
sent back to the Philippines
In all three
cases, the authorities assessed the applicants’ claim based on the grounds
allowed under section 3 of the Bill of Rights (BOR), which are risks of
persecution and/or torture; and under BOR 2 (section2) risk of a violation to
right to life.
Under BOR 3 risk of torture, an applicant must prove that he
has a genuine and substantial risk of being subject to mental or physical
torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading ill treatment;
or punishment, if returned to his home state.
BOR 3 “persecution risk”, requires the applicant to
establish that he has a well-founded fear that he will face persecution because
of race, religion, nationality or membership in a social group or political
opinion, if he is expelled and returned to his home state.
Under BOR 2, on the other hand, the applicant must
establish that there is a real risk that he will be arbitrarily deprived of his
life, have a death penalty imposed upon him; or be the victim of genocide.
The Registrar in the two leave applications, and the High
Court through Justice Aarif Barma and Judge Godfrey Lam in the appeal case, all
decided that the applicants failed to meet the criteria set out in both BOR 3
and BOR 2 risks.
Further, in the appeal case, the judges ruled that appellant
Portillo failed to raise any “viable ground” for his case.
In the leave applications, the Registrar ruled that there
was no “reasonably arguable basis” for allowing either of the judicial review applications to proceed,
and that there was no realistic prospect of success if leave were to be
granted.
===
I-TRY MO ITO, KATRIBO!
Mas madali nang tawagan ang mga advertiser natin dito. Pindutin lang ang kanilang ad at lalabas ang automatic dialer. Isa pang pindot ay matatawagan mo ang advertiser na hindi na kailangang i-dial ang numero nila. I-try mo!
Mas madali nang tawagan ang mga advertiser natin dito. Pindutin lang ang kanilang ad at lalabas ang automatic dialer. Isa pang pindot ay matatawagan mo ang advertiser na hindi na kailangang i-dial ang numero nila. I-try mo!
 |
| Call us now! |
 |
| CALL US! |
 |
| Call us! |
