 |
| Court again rejects Filipina asylum-seeker's attempt to keep her case alive. |
The Court of First Instance (CFI) has refused to change its decision stripping a Filipina, who is seeking asylum in Hong Kong since 2009, of her right to be heard in court, saying there is nothing in her latest petition that would suggest such change.
Jamaicha B. Bansiles, who arrived as a domestic helper in 2006
and had been overstaying since 2007, was appealing a ruling by Judge Russell
Coleman of the Court of First Instance which forbade her from initiating legal
proceedings on her case in the next five years without the CFI’s permission,
and told her to pay the court’s costs of $35,000.
In that decision, handed down on Jan 31, Judge Coleman
sought to end Bansiles’ attempts to keep her case alive in the judicial system,
“even after she had exhausted all available judicial procedures to overturn the
decision of the Torture Claim Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition
Office (“the Board”) by way of judicial review.”
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
“Indeed, in the present context, it is all the more
important to bring home the message that habitually and persistently
instituting vexation litigations would be met with appropriate costs
orders,” he added in that decision.
In her new application filed only 10 days later, Bansiles claimed
that the court did not consider that she would face serious risk of harm if
sent back to her country, that her asylum claim is genuine, that she feared her
life is in danger, and that she is not satisfied with the previous assessment
of her claim.
She also said she learned about that decision only from The SUN
Hong Kong (read the story here: https://www.sunwebhk.com/2022/02/court-shuts-down-filipinas-asylum-bid.html).
 |
| CONTACT US! |
But in his new decision dated Feb. 16, 2022, Judge Coleman said
Bansiles “continues to focus on her previous underlying claim to
non-refoulement protection, which has been addressed on numerous previous
occasions through the Board and the Court’s appellate process.”
He also said that Bansiles’ claims had already been denied
by the Court of Final Appeal, after which “the Defendant then applied for an
extension of time on 11 occasions to submit further evidence, but failed to do
so.”
“When the Director (of Immigration) considered that there
was no significant change of circumstances which would give the intended
subsequent claim any realistic prospect of success, the Defendant’s intended
challenge to that decision brought in HCAL 1746/2020 failed to identify any
proper intended grounds of review,” he added
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
Judge Coleman also noted that Bansiles’ filing was “strikingly
similar” to that in another case pending before him.
He noted the similarity in “both in the handwriting on the
actual Form 27A as well as in the ‘grounds’ typed in the separate document said
to identify the basis for leave to commence fresh proceedings.”
 |
| CALL US! |
