.jpg) |
| Those who face torture or harm in the Philippines can seek state protection, says the court |
A Filipina tourist who overstayed her visa lost an application for a judicial review of the decision by the Immigration Director and Torture Claims Adjudication Board denying her claim for non-refoulement, or being sent back to the Philippines.
Arlene B. Digma sought the review, saying the Director
and TCAB erred in rejecting her claim for non-refoulement on the ground that
she faced harm from her estranged husband on her return to the Philippines.
But in its decision denying her application, the High Court said, among other things, that state protection is available in the Philippines for those who face threats of violence. Relocation is also a viable option to get away from that threat.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE! |
Digma, a former domestic helper, entered Hong Kong
as a visitor on May 16, 2016 and did not leave when her visa expired. She
surrendered to Immigration on June 13, 2016 and on August 4 of the same year,
lodged a non-refoulement claim. She claimed that if sent back home, she would
be harmed or killed by her husband Marlo.
According to Digma her husband had a drinking
problem and would abuse her whenever he got drunk. She stayed with him
initially for the sake of their children and did not report the abuse as her
husband had a nephew who was a police officer.
In 2015 Digma came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic
helper, and during that time, developed a romantic relationship with a man. Her
sister-in-law who was also working in Hong Kong at the time saw them together,
and reported her to Marlo. As a result, she received frequent death threats
from her husband, prompting her to seek protection in Hong Kong.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
In assessing her claim, the Director took note of
the risks of (1) torture, (2) violation of the right to life, (3) cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and (4) persecution and whether
they were present in her case.
The Director dismissed Digma’s claim after noting
that the injuries she claimed to have suffered at the hands of her husband were
not severe enough and her perceived harm or ill-treatment, not imminent or
substantial.
Moreover, the Director said she could avail of state
protection while in the Philippines, or simply live far from her husband to
avoid the alleged abuse.
 |
| BOOK YOUR FLIGHTS NOW! PRESS FOR DETAILS |
Digma appealed the decision to the TCAB, which
however, sustained the Director’s findings. Moreover, the TCAB cited “significant”
discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence on her interactions with her husband since
she left the Philippines.
The TCAB also dismissed the applicant’s excuses for
not seeking medical attention or police protection when her husband was allegedly
abusing or threatening her.
Further, the TCAB said “the country of origin
information indicated that state protection to women who were victims of
domestic violence was available.”
 |
| BASAHIN DITO |
Despite filing for leave for a judicial review, Digma
did not ask for a hearing so Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung dealt with her
application on paper.
In upholding the decisions of the Director and the
TCAB, Judge Lung said the role of the Court was merely supervisory. It is
tasked only with ensuring that the Board complied with the law in coming up
with its decision.
Citing a case law, the judge said the assessment of
evidence as to the risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal
relocation primarily rested with the Board and the Director.
“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,” said Judge Lung.
Having given due regard to this, the judge said the
Court did not find “any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s
decision,” and as such, the application should be dismissed.
In addition, he said there was no realistic prospect of success in Digma’s proposed judicial review.
 |
| PADALA NA! |
.jpg)
