.gif)
 |
| The High Court says the applicant should not be allowed to keep filing cases |
The High Court has clamped down on a Filipino asylum seeker who, after losing his non-refoulement case at the highest level -- the Court of Final Appeal -- went back to the Immigration Department to file a new claim, using the same arguments to seek protection from being sent home to the Philippines.
On orders of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung, the Court of
First Instance issued a restricted proceedings order (RPO) on Renante Buniag as
it again rejected his application for leave to appeal the rejection of his new
claim.
“There is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the
applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim
on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process” for the sole
purpose of remaining in Hong Kong, declared the decision written by M.O. Wong for
the High Court Registrar.
 |
| PINDUTIN PARA SA DETALYE |
Under the RPO, Buniag is “prohibited from commencing any
fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing
legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in
the High Court and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court
of First Instance.”
“No more than one leave application … may be made by the
Applicant within any period of 3 months,” it added.
If he does initiate such proceedings, the RPO requires them
to be referred to the court which will deal with them on paper and without any
oral hearing.
The RPO will be effective for five years, it added.
 |
| Basahin ang detalye! |
Buniag arrived in Hong Kong as a tourist and overstayed
since Sept. 22, 2017; he filed his non-refoulement claim on April 19, 2018.
His reason was that his life was in danger because he failed
to repay debts and that he was also involved in drug trafficking in the
Philippines.
The Immigration director rejected his application because his
claim was not substantiated. His appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal
Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) was also dismissed after
it found that his evidence was inconsistent.
The Court of the First Instance rejected his appeal for
leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision on Dec. 3, 2021. He then brought
his case to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal.
Finally on Oct. 6 ,2023, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed his Notice
of Motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Last Jan. 24, he wrote to the Immigration director to again
claim non-refoulement, but this was rejected because he admitted that there was
no change in the circumstances he cited in his failed 2018 claim.
This brought him again to the CFI, which rejected his
application for leave to file a judicial review and, in addition, issued an RFO
to prevent him from abusing the judicial process.
 |
| Pindutin dito para sa iba pang mga detalye |
