Fear of husband's wrath for getting pregnant in HK not enough basis for asylum

 

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.

Pindutin dito para sa iha pang mga detalye

PRESS FOR DETAILS