 |
| The Court of First Instance hearings are held at the High Court |
Fear of being killed by one’s husband after having a child by
another man is not enough reason for a woman to be granted asylum in Hong
Kong.
J. Tadiosa, 50, learned this lesson after the High
Court refused to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which
upheld the rejection of her non-refoulement claim by the director of Immigration.
The original decision found that Tadiosa’s reason for
seeking protection from forced return to the Philippines did not fall under the
four accepted reasons for granting asylum: risk of violation of the right to
life; risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; risk
of persecution defined by the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol.
 |
| PINDUTIN DITO |
Besides, the decision said, “not seeking protection at the
earliest opportunity was also inconsistent with a person who is genuinely in
fear of being harmed.”
She appealed the case to the Board, which conducted a hearing
that she attended.
“The Board found the applicant untruthful. It noted that she
gave unreliable evidence regarding the group that her husband had been involved
in. She also gave vague and unpersuasive evidence as to whether she had reported
the matter to the police; the claimed
past incidents of physical harm from her husband and the receipt of threatening
text messages from her husband. Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in her
evidence regarding the timing and the circumstances in which she separated from
her husband and the living arrangement of her son. Her explanation as to why
she disclosed her extramarital affairs in Hong Kong to her husband was also
unconvincing,” the Court of First Instance noted in a decision ordered by Deputy
High Court Judge K.W. Lung.
 |
| TAWAG NA! |
“It considered that the applicant had fabricated her claims
to prolong her stay in Hong Kong and that she would not face a real risk of
harm upon return,” the decision added.
The court also noted that Tadiosa “said she understands the Board’s
Decision and she is not saying that the Board was wrong, but she wants to stay
here for the sake of her daughter, who is studying here.” The daughter was born in February 2005.
Thus, the decision concluded, she “has raised no valid
ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.”
Tadiosa arrived in Hong Kong on Oct. 2 1999 to work as a
foreign domestic helper.
She overstayed in Hong Kong since Nov. 22, 2003 and was
arrested by the Immigration Department on Nov. 27, 2008. Two days later, was
convicted for overstaying and was jailed for five months.
Tadiosa filed her claim on Sept. 21, 2009, which was
rejected on April 26, 2013. Her appeal was also dismissed on July 7,
2014.
.jpg) |
| Pindutin dito para sa iha pang mga detalye |
.jpg) |
| PRESS FOR DETAILS |
