SULISTYOWATI DWI KURNIA AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SULISTYOWATI DWI KURNIA AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicants relied on the same or similar facts as in their finally determined prior claims and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO such that the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was made to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 183
Parties
1st Applicant: Sulistyowati Dwi Kurnia; 2nd Applicant: Sulistyowati Ikhwan Yusuf Jalloh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL663/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Notification of Decision
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Torture/cidtp, Bill of Rights (right to Life), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave Stage
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Torture/cidtp +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sulistyowati Dwi Kurnia

1st Applicant

Sulistyowati Ikhwan Yusuf Jalloh

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Notification of Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director complied with public law requirements in refusing the subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is necessary to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicants relied on the same or similar facts as in their finally determined prior claims and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO such that the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was made to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed

Orders

  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All applications for leave under paragraph (1) must be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other designated Judge.