 |
| The Court of Appeal is based at the High Court |
The Court of Appeal has ended a Filipina’s bid to reverse, through a judicial review by the High Court, earlier decisions that denied her claim to asylum in Hong Kong.
Jean Pudadera, a terminated domestic helper who has
overstayed, sought non-refoulement on April 12, 2017, citing threats to her
life from her husband because she had a relationship with another man in Hong
Kong, and from creditors because of unpaid debts.
Her application was rejected by the Director of Immigration
because her reasons did not meet the international requirements for asylum, and
were unrelated to rights protected by Hong Kong law, against such risks as torture,
death and persecution.
 |
| PINDUTIN DITO |
Consequently the Torture Claims Appeal Board considered the
threats as not serious enough, as she can avail of state protection and
relocate elsewhere in the Philippines to avoid the threats she cited.
When Pudadera sought judicial review, Deputy High Court
Judge Bruno Chan ruled on May 15,2023 that she had “no reasonably arguable
basis for the review since there was no error of law or procedural unfairness
in the Board’s decision.“
She brought the case up to the Court of Appeal, but it chose
not to disturb Judge Chan’s ruling.
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
In a decision issued last Sept. 2 by Justices of Appeal
Peter Cheung and Godfrey Lam, the court said that it *would only reverse the
decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in
law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the
decision was otherwise plainly wrong."
It added: "None of the arguments raised by the
applicant shows the Deputy Judge has made any error of law.”
 |
| Pindutin dito para sa iba pang mga detalye |
