MANILA –
Global cosmetic giants have severed ties with a Kuwaiti social media celeb who ranted in opposition to giving relaxation days to Filipino domestic helpers in the Gulf kingdom as the boycott continues to rage online.
MAC, Japanese emblem Shiseido, and South Korea’s Etude House currently joined other manufacturers like MaxFactor and M. Micallef in condemning the anti-worker outburst of Sondos al Qattan, a makeup artist who has 2.3 million followers on Instagram.
After ‘rant’ vs. Pinoy helpers, Kuwaiti online star loses sponsors. The famous social media person made headlines after she publicly slammed a brand new coverage in Kuwait that allowed Filipino house helpers to hold their passports and have at least one time without work consistent with the week.
“We currently do not have any partnerships with her and could no longer be running along with her on any brand sports,” MAC Cosmetics stated in a declaration despatched to Gulf News. MAC strives “to align ourselves with companions that share our middle values and in no manner tolerate excluding everybody,” the makeup large stated.
Shiseido and Etude House also distanced themselves from the Kuwaiti social media superstar, who refused to express regret for her comments. “Shiseido knows that it needs to respect the human rights of all individuals as a pre-needful to conduct commercial enterprise sports for its sustainable increase collectively with the global society,” the brand instructed United Nations Migration officer Chinky Bacal-Mayencourt.
“Shiseido isn’t presently running with Sondos. We haven’t any plans to work with her once more inside the destiny,” the message read.
“As an Asian-beginning company, we aid the uplifting and betterment in dwelling conditions of domestic assistance inside the Middle East,” Etude House told Gulf News.
Sondos earlier said that public outcry opposing her opinion on home employee rights was “unjustified” and did not require an apology.
“All I said turned into that the organization was entitled to maintain the servant’s passport and that many Kuwaitis and Gulf nationals accept as true with me,” she stated.
Michael (now not his actual call), a former Filipino who became a naturalized citizen within the U.S., desired to have his marriage with his Filipina wife annulled. He has been far from his spouse for over fifteen years and has determined a new love in New York. So he contacted a legal professional in Manila who provided a “fear-loose, non-look annulment. ”
The attorney explained that everyone he needed to do changed to narrate his marital history, sign the petition, and pay a hefty sum as the lawyer’s prices. The legal professional stated that he should not come to the Philippines to attend the court hearings. Michael is an I.T. expert and could not be predicted to realize the nitty-gritty info of the annulment process inside the Philippines. Besides, he became confident that the lawyer would give him the appropriate recommendation. So, he paid the rate and signed the petition as advised. Three months later, he obtained a court docket decision that his marriage had been annulled.
Ecstatic, he once implemented a fiancé visa (K1 petition) for his Filipina female friend. Part of the requirement for Michael to give his Single certificate/ Certificate of No Marriage (aka CENOMAR) to the USA Embassy, together with a Certificate of Finality from the courtroom, which granted the annulment decision.
Much to his wonder, the U.S. Embassy denied his petition on the floor of fraud. The U.S. Embassy discovered that the annulment decision changed into a bogus choice. Michael became indefinitely barred from filing any U.S. visa application. Moreover, his reputation as a naturalized citizen became installed query due to the “fraud” he allegedly committed.
DENIED U.S. VISA PETITION
Q: What can Michael do to reverse the decision of the United States Embassy denying his K1 visa petition?
A: Michael desires to return to the Philippine court, which rendered the annulment selection, to affirm if the stated court validly issued the decision. If it did, he can ask for a certification from the court docket and then ask the United States Embassy to rethink. If it did not, then he has a bigger problem.
Michael will likely find that the courtroom did not have difficulty in the annulment choice. The U.S. Embassy discovered that it became a bogus choice by virtually checking with the court if the case variety indicated on the Certificate of Finality changed into a case for annulment and whether it changed into Michael’s abolition.
NON-APPEARANCE ANNULMENT
Q: Can a foreigner report a petition to annul a marriage inside the Philippines without acting in a court docket? In other phrases, is there a non-look annulment?
A: There is not any such element as a non-look annulment. In a minimum range of courtroom court cases, the petitioner will be required to see, in my opinion, the pre-trial and for the duration of the providing of the petitioner’s oral testimony. Further, in uncontested petitions, the court docket will require the events to, for my part, seem earlier than the financial during the collision hearing.
Regrettably, in connivance with court workforce participants, many attorneys make quite a little money providing this, referred to as “non-look annulment.” What they do is to problem unauthorized court docket decisions granting the annulment. They pass as far as having these decisions recorded in the NSO so that Michael can get a CENOMAR and remarry in the long run.
In different cases, the attorney will present a dummy to take the witness stand pretending to be the petitioner to meet the stern requirement that the petitioner desires to “individually appear” in court.
One aspect is positive: if you filed the petition and were not required to appear in court, that may be a bogus selection- a fake annulment.
Q: Can Michael truly re-record the annulment?
A: Technically, there has been no annulment case filed, but yes, Michael can re-report the annulment. I need to say that he has put himself in a very tough situation by agreeing to get a bogus annulment decision. He can argue that he trusted his legal professional to take care of the whole lot; however, on the other hand, a lack of understanding of the law excuses no one.
