ZORAYDAH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ZORAYDAH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that would give the subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abusive re-litigation of the same facts.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2034
Parties
1st Applicant: Zoraydah; 2nd Applicant: Rahman Arinda Zahra; 3rd Applicant: Rahman Hasif Ramadani; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL57/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Torture Claim, Minor Representation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zoraydah

1st Applicant

Rahman Arinda Zahra

2nd Applicant

Rahman Hasif Ramadani

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement Subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants satisfied s.37ZO threshold of significant change of circumstances to give subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether Director of Immigration's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether minors' lack of legal representation vitiated the decision-making process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that would give the subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abusive re-litigation of the same facts.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Restricted Proceedings Order made in terms set out in the judgment (prohibiting the applicants from commencing or continuing any non-refoulement proceedings in the High Court without leave, requiring prior notification to intended respondents, providing for paper disposal of leave applications, limiting frequency of...