High Court rejects Filipino’s bid to review failed asylum claim

 

The High Court, where the Court of First Instance holds it proceedings 

A Filipino has failed to convince the High Court to review his asylum application -- based on his claim that he was being hunted by two men in the Philippines who happened to leave plastic bags containing drugs in the tricycle he was driving and which he turned over to the police. 

His initial application had been rejected by both the Immigration Department, and then by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (Board).

Bernard Sampayan’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was rejected by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung, saying he raised “no valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision,” so there is no reason “the Court should interfere with the Board’s finding of the facts.”

He had also asked to appear in a hearing at the Court of First Instance and it was scheduled for 24 April 2024. “However, he was absent without prior notice to the Court,” according to the decision issued this week by M.O. Wong for the Registrar of the High Court, on order of Judge Lung.

Sampayan, aged 61, arrived in Hong Kong as a visitor on Oct. 11, 2017 and has overstayed since Oct. 26, 2017. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on Nov. 9, 2017 and made a non-refoulement claim on the same day.

He claimed that he would be harmed or killed by the two Filipinos who left the plastic bags containing drugs in his tricycle in Manila on Sept. 9, 2017 after they noticed a police car was following them, and he was then framed by the police to whom he turned over the drugs, of being involved in drug dealings.

PINDUTIN DITO

The claim was first rejected by the Immigration Department because it failed to meet the requirements for granting asylum: that he faced the risk of torture, death, inhuman treatment and persecution as defined by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the 1951 international convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

When he appealed the decision to the Board, it conducted a hearing on March 7, 2019 and found that in addition to not satisfying the basic requirements, his claim was also based on lies.

“Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board was not satisfied that his claims were truthful. There were significant inconsistencies in his evidence,” the CFI decision said.  

“The Board found that the applicant was never physically injured or threatened with death by the passengers. They were also satisfied that the police did not make allegations against the applicant for any drug related offences,” it added.

TAWAG NA!

In his appeal for judicial review, Sampayan claimed that the Board did not “conduct sufficient inquiry” into his case and “take into account psychological strain and threats to him personally or threats to him of being killed,” the decision noted.

But it dismissed these claims because “they are his bare and general assertions without any evidence in support.”

Pindutin dito para sa iha pang mga detalye

PRESS FOR DETAILS