 |
| "... most if not all of the applicant’s allegations are vague, bare contentions and without basis in or support by evidence," says the appeeal court |
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a Filipino community leader’s appeal against the government’s rejection of his claim not to be sent back to the Philippines for fear of being killed, tortured or harmed.
“At the outset, most if not all of the applicant’s
allegations are vague, bare contentions and without basis in or support by
evidence,” Justice of Appeal Poon Siu-tung said as he outlined the 15-year non-refoulement
claim of Raymundo Perez.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE! |
Perez, founding chairman of the United Villasis Pangasinan Association
and member of the Utol group, arrived as a tourist on Aug. 9, 2008 and
overstayed when his two-week visa expired.
After he was arrested by police on Oct. 30, 2008, he filed his
non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department, claiming he would be
harmed or killed by his boss named Antonio Villar over a monetary dispute.
 |
| Pindutin para sa detalye |
After the Director of Immigration rejected his
non-refoulement claim on Feb. 2, 2017, Perez appealed to the Torture Claims
Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office.
But the Board affirmed the director’s findings, saying there
was no evidence to suggest that Antonio was behind the death threats and that Antonio
had passed away in 2019, rendering any risks of harm to Perez non-existent.
 |
| Pindutin para sa detalye |
When his claim was rejected by the Board on April 4, 2019, Perez
filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review at the Court of
First Instance, saying the Board was procedurally unfair, that the decision was
irrational, that it committed an error in law and that it was Wednesbury unreasonable
-- a test of reasonableness based on a case, Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948).
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
But Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung refused his application, saying: “The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to its Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact finding power vested in the Director and the Board.”
Perez thus went to the Court of Appeal, saying he would
“face hardship” if refouled, and that the Board had erroneously relied on
“source of news which is not official recognised, or it is simply hearsay”.
 |
| BOOK YOUR FLIGHTS NOW! PRESS FOR DETAILS |
Justice Poon, in his decision dated April 13 after he and fellow Justice of Appeal Aarif Tyebjee Barma heared the case on March 16, said: “… it is well-established that the assessment of evidence, COI (country of origin) and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director) as primary decision makers. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”
Besides, “… general assertions of the applicant’s fear if
refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal,“ he said.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
“Although he disagreed with the Leave Decision, nowhere in
his Notice of Appeal or written submissions did the applicant identify with
specific particulars as to how the Deputy Judge had erred in reaching the Leave
Decision. Accordingly, his submissions
are plainly not proper grounds of appeal. On this basis alone, his appeal must
fail,” the justice said.
 |
| PADALA NA! |
 |
| CALL US! |
 |
