Responsive Ad Slot




Buhay Pinay



Philippine News

Join us at Facebook!

Court rejects Filipina asylum seeker's latest bid to keep case alive

23 February 2022

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.”


“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:


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


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.”


Don't Miss