TRAN VAN SONG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

TRAN VAN SONG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and properly concluded the additional material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 750
Parties
1st Applicant: Tran Van Song; 2nd Applicant: Bui Thi Lan; 3rd Applicant: Tran Thi Van Anh; 4th Applicant: Tran Duc Long; 5th Applicant: Tran Quoc Trung; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1328/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Notification of Decision
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicants' application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Standard of Review (wednesbury)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Refugee and Asylum Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Van Song

1st Applicant

Bui Thi Lan

2nd Applicant

Tran Thi Van Anh

3rd Applicant

Tran Duc Long

4th Applicant

Tran Quoc Trung

5th 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 lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change in circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's fact-finding was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and properly concluded the additional material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no Wednesbury unreasonableness or procedural unfairness, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicants' application dismissed.

Orders

  • Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made prohibiting the Applicants from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All applications for leave 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 a designated judge