 |
| High Court has imposed restrictions on Filipina claiming non-refoulement. |
The High Court has rejected a Filipina’s request for a judicial review of the Immigration Department’s rejection of her non-refoulement claim, which seeks to protect her from forcible return to her country - and then stopped her from filing a similar suit.
In a decision issued on January 6, Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung imposed a Restricted
Proceedings Order (RPO) against Rina Padernal, who arrived as a domestic helper
in 2013 and had been overstaying since September 2014, to prevent her from initiating
fresh cases and abusing Hong Kong’s justice system.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
“The (Immigration) Director’s findings show that the
applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of her previous
claim for a subsequent claim, which will amount to an abuse of the process,”
the judge said in a decision released on Jan. 6.
“I am satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that
the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the
sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only,” Judge Lung said.
 | |
|
Padernal’s case began when she made her non-refoulement
claim on June 22, 2016, on the grounds that she faced the risk of being “killed
by her husband because of domestic violence”.
What followed was a string of actions that led to the conclusion
that she was abusing the process.
 |
| BUY NOW PRESS HERE |
After her claim was rejected by the Immigration Director on
Jan. 4, 2017, she appealed to the Torture Claim Board which rejected her appeal
on all applicable grounds on July 31, 2018.
She then went to the High Court to apply for leave for
judicial review of that decision, but was rejected on June 5, 2020.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
She asked the Court of Appeal to reverse the court’s order but
was refused on April 1, 2021.
Undeterred, she filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal the same decision, but this was similarly dismissed
by the Court of Appeal on December 6, 2021.
 |
| BOOK YOUR FLIGHTS NOW! PRESS FOR DETAILS |
She next asked for leave to appeal, but this was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal on July 13, 2022.
Her next step was to write to the Immigration Director on Jul 20, 2022, claiming non-refoulement protection on the ground that she was told recently that her husband was still looking for her and their adult son with the intention of harming them. This was similarly refused.
 |
| HOW TO AVAIL? PRESS HERE |
Finally, she went back to the Court of First Instance for
this case and Judge Lung summoned her to court to show cause why an RPO should not be issued against her.
In his decision, the judge said: "Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against her, the applicant said she had nothing to say."
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
Among others, the RPO prohibits Padernal from commencing any
fresh proceedings, or continuing any existing legal proceedings relating to her
non-refoulement claims, without leave from the Court of First Instance.
All applications for leave shall be made to Judge Lung or,
in his absence, such other judge designated to hear Constitutional and
Administrative Law cases. No more than one application will be allowed every
three months.
The RPO will be valid for five years.
 |
| PADALA NA! |
 |
.jpg) |
| PRESS FOR DETAILS |
 |
| CALL US! |
