 |
| The appellant told the court he shouldn't be sent home because he has unpaid debts back home |
A Filipino who applied for asylum in Hong Kong saying he feared being killed by his former wife’s boyfriend and a man he beat in
basketball, has failed to convince the Court of Appeal to overturn the Court of First Instance's decision to throw it out.
Glen
Sarabia even raised a new reason for his appeal -- his unpaid debts, for which
his creditors allegedly wanted to kill him -- but
this was set aside as irrelevant in the decision made by Court of Appeal Vice President Susan Kwan and
Judge Lisa Wong of the Court of First Instance.
Sarabia was appealing
against an earlier decision by Judge Wong at CFI not to disturb the decision of
the Torture Claims Appeal Board which rejected his claim for non-refoulement.
 |
| Buksan ang mga tip |
“The applicant’s proposed
grounds for review as set out in the supporting affirmation are either bare
assertions of the Board’s failure to consider matters the assessment of which
rests with the Board, or matters which were not raised before the Board at all.
The applicant did not identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
on the part of the Board in dismissing his appeal against the Director’s
Decision,” the CA decision said.
Sarabia entered Hong Kong on
Oct. 24, 2015 as a visitor. He was permitted to stay until Nov. 7, 2015 but has
overstayed since Nov. 8, 2015.
 | |
|
On Jan. 13, 2016, he surrendered to the Immigration Department and filed his non-refoulement claim on April 10, 2017 to prevent his forcible return to the Philippines.
His two reasons for seeking Hong
Kong’s protection were dismissed by the Board after two hearings, which said that it was
a private dispute that did not involve persecution and torture risk.
 |
| TAWAG NA! |
“In any event, reasonable
state protection and internal relocation alternatives are available to the applicant
to lower or even negate the perceived risk of harm,” it ruled.
On appeal, the Court of First Instance reiterated its long-standing policy: “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.”
 |
| PINDUTIN ITO |
The apellate court, to which
Sarabia turned to next, eft the CFI decision intact.
It explained, “an appeal
against a refusal of leave to apply for judicial review is not the occasion for
the Court of Appeal to examine the decision of the Board (or that of the
Director) afresh. What the appellate court is concerned with is the decision of
the judge at first instance, which is considered in light of the grounds of
appeal raised by the applicant. The Court of Appeal shall interfere if and only
if the judge had erred in law, failed to take into account a relevant matter or
was otherwise plainly wrong.”
It concluded: “We have anxiously
examined the Board’s Decision and the Judge’s Decision and are satisfied that
both are in order.”
 |
| PADALA NA! |
.jpg) |
| PRESS FOR DETAILS |
