MANILA, Philippines -- The Court of Appeals has upheld the Bureau of Immigration?s decision more than seven years ago ordering the deportation of sugar trader Jimmy Go, alias Jaime T. Gaisano.

In a 15-page decision, the appellate court?s 12th division ruled that the immigration bureau?s finding in April 2002 that Go was a Chinese citizen, and its order that he be deported already gained finality even before he filed an appeal before the Office of the President in April 2004.

The appellate court added that instead of filing a motion for reconsideration before the BI, Go took his case to the Pasig regional trial court. Go filed an appeal before the Office of the President after the trial court dismissed his case.

Still finding no relief from Malacañang, Go took his appeal to the appellate court. It ruled that the Office of the President did not even have to take up the case since the BI decision became final after Go failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration before the bureau.

?Sans any motion for reconsideration being filed with the BI, the petitioner belatedly filed his notice of appeal with the OP only on 01 April 2004 or almost two years after the subject 17 April 2002 decision of the BI was issued,? the appellate court said.

?Certainly, the petitioner?s appeal to the OP was filed way beyond the period allowed by law. Thus, it becomes rational to conclude that the? decision of the BI had already become final and executory,? it added.

The appellate court thus favored Luis Ramos, Go?s former business associate, who argued before the appellate court that Go?s appeal before the appellate court should be dismissed because Malacañang should not have entertained a late appeal.

The appellate court also chided Go for ?(seeking) to mislead the court? when he said that he was not able to file a timely motion for reconsideration with the BI because he was not formally given a copy of the deportation order.

?The evidence before us shows that the petitioner had actual knowledge of the existence of subject BI order dated 17 April 2002 and that he indeed received a copy of the same through his counsel, on 10 June 2002 as explicitly admitted in his supplemental petition (before the Pasig trial court),? the appellate court said.

?The foregoing considered, evidence on record are abundant to conclude that petitioner?s allegation that he did not receive a copy of (the deportation order) is a blatant lie and is intended merely to deceive this Court hence, deserves no shred of credence or merit,? it added.