The SUN HK : End of line for 55-year-old asylum seeker

Judge upheld Immigration's decision to reject the Filipina's bid against deportation

After fighting for 16 years for the right to remain in Hong Kong, a 55-year-old former domestic worker who was seeking to stop her deportation to the Philippines on claims that she faced persecution, even death there, finally agreed to return home.

But M.C. Dadivas’ effort was also due to the losing battle she faced, trying to get the High Court to review the decision by Immigration and the Torture Claims Adjudication Board to deny her application for non-refoulement, or against being sent back home.

In a decision handed down on September 6, Judge Bruno Chan dismissed Dadivas’ application for leave or permission for a judicial review of Immigration and TACB’s decisions.

PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE!

The dismissal was based both on the lack of merit in Dadivas’ application and her filing of an affirmation on June 9 that she wished to withdraw her case, saying it was now safe for her to return home.

“In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of her latest confirmation that it is safe to return to her home country, I accordingly dismiss her leave application,” said Judge Chan.

In the judgment, it was noted that Dadivas last arrived in Hong Kong on Feb. 11, 2007 to work as a foreign domestic helper on a two-year contract.

CONTACT US!

However, her contract was terminated on May 19, 2007 and instead of going home within the 14 days allowed under her visa, she decided to remain in Hong Kong.

She was arrested more than five years later, or on Dec. 26, 2012 and subsequently sentenced to six months in prison. After being discharged from prison and just as she was about to be deported, she filed a non-refoulement claim, saying her husband or his brother would kill her because of a loan dispute.

Records showed Dadivas was born and raised in Iloilo City. After leaving school she got married and had four children in her hometown.

Pindutin para sa detalye

The High Court said that marriage ended in divorce (possibly annulment, as divorce is still not recognized in the Philippines), and the applicant remarried in 2003 to another man called Nicolas.

In 2005 Dadivas opened a grocery store which she funded with a loan from Nicolas’ brother, Diddy, which she was meant to repay within a year, with interest.

However, the grocery business failed and was eventually closed down in November 2005. As she failed to repay her loan Diddy allegedly made threats against her, so to appease him she came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper.

PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE

She did start repaying the loan when she first came to Hong Kong on Feb. 24, 2006 but when she again missed repayment, Diddy went to Nicolas and started harassing him. Irked, Nicolas made similar threats against the applicant.

When she got terminated in her last employment, Dadivas said she started fearing for her life and decided to overstay her visa.

After completing a non-refoulement claim form she attended a screening interview with the Immigration Department, assisted by counsel from the Duty Lawyer Service.

BOOK YOUR FLIGHTS NOW! PRESS FOR DETAILS

But on Jan 26, 2014 the Immigration Director decided to reject her application, saying the risk of her being harmed by her husband or his brother upon her return to the Philippines was low, as past incidents showed there was no real intention on the men’s part to seriously harm or kill her.

In any event, said the Director, these were just “private monetary or domestic disputes between them without any official involvement”, meaning the applicant can seek state or police protection if her life was truly in danger.

Morever, the “country of origin information” on the Philippines showed that internal relocation was possible in the country, as its population of 107 million is spread out “across a vast territory of more than 300,000 square kilometres”.

PINDUTIN PARA SA

As an able-bodied adult with working experience it would be difficult if not impossible, for persecutors to find her, said the Director.

On May 5, 2015 the applicant appealed against the Immigration Director’s decision with the TCAB. On Jun 28, 2016, the TCAB dismissed her appeal and upheld the Director’s decision.

Despite this, the Director, on his own initiative, invited the applicant on Jan 20, 2017 to submit additional facts that she may consider relevant to her non-refoulement claim.

Instead of complying with the invitation Dadivas filed an appeal with the TCAB against the Director’s decision more than a year later, or on Jan. 31, 2018. As it was filed way beyond the 14-day dealine for lodging an appeal, the Board rejected the appeal.

Dadivas then went to the High Court on Sept. 4, 2019 to apply for leave to apply for a judicial review, saying she just wanted to get the decision reviewed as it disregarded her dangerous situation.

In rejecting the application, the court said it did not find any reasonably arguable basis for her intended challenge.

“Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure… to apply high standards of fairness..” said the court.