Many asylum seekers could be quality migrants

May 23rd, 2015 | Immigration, Media, Rejection | Comment

EJInsight - Many asylum seekers could be quality migrants

SWD confirms introduction of food coupons for refugees

May 22nd, 2015 | Food, Welfare | Comment

SWD confirms introduction of food coupons

SWD awards new service contract for refugees to ISS-HK

May 22nd, 2015 | Food, Government, Housing, Welfare | Comment

SWD awards new service contract to ISS-HK

Judgment HCAL 75/2015 – Qureshi

May 22nd, 2015 | Immigration, Legal, Rejection | Comment

UPDATE BLOG: “Liberty secured for refugee after harrowing treatment in CIC”

High Court judgment - HCAL 75_2015 - Qureshi

Police bust gang that smuggled Bangladeshi workers into Hong Kong

May 20th, 2015 | Crime, Immigration, Media | Comment

SCMP - Police bust gang that allegedly smuggled Bangladeshi workers into Hong Kong

Bangladeshi smuggling ring smashed

May 20th, 2015 | Crime, Immigration, Media | Comment

iCable - Bangladeshi smuggling ring -19May2015

Legal visit exposes apparent abuse in Immigration detention centre

May 20th, 2015 | Detention, Government, Immigration, Legal, Rejection, VF Opinion | Comment

Vision First fearlessly reports on incidents that place under the spotlight practices adopted by various Government bodies which include the Director of Immigration, Security Bureau, Social Welfare Department and Hospital Authority.

Examples are asylum policies resulting in an effective zero percent acceptance rate, welfare failures, institutional discrimination and abuses of power by those in authority. It is unfortunate that enormous and entrenched distrust continues to widen between refugees and Government authorities, with officials often failing in their duties prescribed by law.

Government propaganda and uninformed media reports often depict refugees as abusers of the asylum process accusing them of exploiting the system for personal gain. Such generalisation is simply untrue for asylum seekers who fled torture, ill-treatment, death threats and persecution to seek protection from Hong Kong’s Government.

It is increasingly clear that the secretive walls of the Director of Immigration’s Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (CIC) conceal apparent unlawful conduct. On 6 May 2015, Vision First arranged a visit to CIC to provide free legal advice to refugees in relation to asylum claims, the legality of such procedures, conditions and legality of detention and to secure their release from arbitrary deprivation of their liberty

The pro bono legal team comprising Barristers Mark Sutherland and Robert Tibbo, together with their instructing solicitors and interpreters, paid a visit to CIC. This is what transpired. One refugee from Africa had reportedly been detained in CIC for over three and a half months whilst the assessment of his “first tier” non-refoulement claims was underway with all the interviews so far being conducted within CIC. His next interview was due to take place the following day, 7 May 2015.

Another refugee from Africa had been reportedly detained for over a month and only that morning had been handed a set of blank Supplementary Claim Forms by The Duty Lawyer Service (DLS). This was presumably prompted by the prior lodgement of a non-refoulement claim. The assessment of this refugee’s claim had not even started and a lawyer not yet assigned to him by DLS.

A further refugee from South Asia reported that he had attempted to argue his own Appeal without a lawyer and had experienced a detention period of seven months.

Troubled by his findings of lengthy periods of detention, Barrister Mark Sutherland asked to see the supervising Immigration officer. During the course of an hour, three Immigration officers of differing levels of seniority appeared but could not shed any light on the seemingly unlawful detention of the refugees.

Finally, the Superintendent of CIC, a Mr. W.S. Kwong, the highest ranking Immigration officer responsible for CIC attended and agreed to a meeting with the pro bono legal team during which serious concerns were expressed as to the legality of the detention of the refugees. Sutherland asked Mr. Kwong: “Are you aware of the Ghulam Rbani case?” Mr. Kwong replied words to the following effect: “I have never heard of it. It’s not my department.”

Superintendent Kwong was unaware of this landmark and legally binding decision of the Court of Final Appeal case “Ghulam Rbani vs. Secretary for Justice” (FACV 15/2013), wherein it states:-

Once it became clear that the CAT claim had to run its course, it would have been obvious that no decision to make a removal order could have been arrived at within the maximum period of detention permitted under section 32. Applying the 3rd Hardial Singh principle, steps should then have been taken without delay to effect the appellant’s release.”

Put simply, if an asylum seeker has filed a claim for non-refoulement protection, he cannot lawfully be detained and must be released forthwith.

Vision First is of the view that the Director of Immigration, Mr. K.K. Chan, should call for an immediate review of the detention status of each and every inmate currently held at CIC. Sutherland invited Superintendent Kwong to see that such a review was undertaken as a matter of priority. The result is awaited.

Based on this legal visit, Vision First is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to merit an independent investigation of the apparent disregard by the Hong Kong Government of the principles enunciated by the Court of Final Appeal in Ghulam Rbani. We shall leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions.

Legal visit exposes apparent abuse inside CIC

NZ wine with Robert Tibbo

May 18th, 2015 | VF Team | Comment

NZ wine with Robert Tibbo

Misleading cartoon stokes unnecessary fears

May 18th, 2015 | Media, Rejection, VF Opinion | Comment

The South China Morning Post published this cartoon in its print edition on Saturday, 16 May 2015. The depiction of a refugee tsunami does little to further the understanding of why persecuted minorities abandon their homeland and why neighbouring countries tow their boats back out to sea – rather than offering humanitarian assistance.

In an attempt to counter prevailing myths, we offers a brief extract from “Asylum Seeking and the Global City” (p. 160) written by Mr. Francesco Vecchio, non-executive director of Vision First.

“While the majority of asylum seekers are demonized as abusive illegal migrants and penalized for working illegally, those few who abide by the rules are perceived and helped as the genuine refugees, in turn furthering the legal exclusion of the former.

The lack of agency and constant need of care among the so-called genuine refugees, however, raises public fears about the impact on Hong Kong were the floodgates to be opened, specifically on the official policy of minimal spending on welfare.

Therefore whether they are depicted as a burden or as abusive, deviant characters, asylum seeker typify a new form of socio-legal stratification, at the bottom of which they function as the key means of inducing redistributive benefits and labour flexibility, while at the same time embodying an easy target for public resentment.

A self-fulfilling cycle is thus fashioned, arguably assisting the government to administer and articulate social order through immigration control.”

Misleading cartoon stokes unnecessary fears 

Monthly request to for USM statistics

May 13th, 2015 | Government, Immigration | Comment

ImmD - request for monthly USM results - Apr2015