An asylum seeker who just lost an appeal in the High Court where he sought to overturn a decision rejecting his application not to be sent home to the Philippines, has received another extension to his stay in Hong Kong after he appeared in Eastern Court.
A duty lawyer for Armando Molina, 56 years old, told Acting
Principal Magistrate Amy Chan in a hearing on Wednesday (Nov. 8) that he had
filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision.
On this basis, Magistrate Chan adjourned the overstaying case against Molina to March 6 and set him free on $3,000 bail. Among
the bail conditions is that he wil not leave Hong Kong while the case is
pending.
 |
| PINDUTIN DITO! |
Molina’s case dates back to 2014, when he was charged with
breach of condition of stay after he failed to leave Hong Kong as required 14
days after arriving as a visitor on Oct. 30, 2006. He was arrested five years
later, on Sept. 23, 2011.
He raised a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration
Department and later, the Torture Claims Appeal Board, claiming that he would
be killed or harmed by a former governor of Isabela province because Molina failed
to help him get reelected.
Both agencies rejected his application, saying his reasons
did not fall within acceptable grounds, such as risk of torture, risk of
violation of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and risk of persecution as a
refugee.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
He appealed to the High Court, but last Sept. 14, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan rejected
Molina’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.
Judge Chan asserted that in his appeal, Molina “failed to
put forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, and in the absence of
any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process
before the Board or in either of its decisions being clearly and properly
identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for
his intended challenge or any merits in his intended application.”
The judge also defined the use of judicial review.
 |
| BASAHIN ANG DETALYE |
“… judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the applicant t\o present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board,” Chan said. “… the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the applicant.”
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
 |
| PADALA NA! |
.jpg) |
| PRESS FOR DETAILS |
