JIM BAHADUR GARBUJA AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

JIM BAHADUR GARBUJA AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO(2) that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the immigration officer was entitled to rely on prior adverse findings and COI regarding state protection and internal relocation; no screening interview was required; and a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process given persistent attempts to re-litigate a claim finally determined.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 622
Parties
1st Applicant: Jim Bahadur Garbuja; 2nd Applicant: Pun Prabina; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Case Number
HCAL1422/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against both applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Torture and CIDTP, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Torture and CIDTP Internal Relocation +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Bahadur Garbuja

1st Applicant

Pun Prabina

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director correctly applied section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance in refusing permission to make a subsequent non‑refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether applicants provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances to satisfy s37ZO(2)
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness required a screening interview or oral hearing before refusal

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO(2) that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the immigration officer was entitled to rely on prior adverse findings and COI regarding state protection and internal relocation; no screening interview was required; and a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process given persistent attempts to re-litigate a claim finally determined.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against both applicants

Orders

  • Applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications must be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a Judge so designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court