JUMIATI AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

JUMIATI AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicants failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his decision and the Applicants' persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined matters constituted an abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1807
Parties
1st Applicant: Jumiati; 2nd Applicant: Jumiati Muhammad Hafiz Rizky; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL575/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Allow Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused; Disposition and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jumiati

1st Applicant

Jumiati Muhammad Hafiz Rizky

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Allow Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused; Disposition and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants satisfied section 37ZO(2) by showing a significant change of circumstances since the previous final determination
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or breached procedural fairness in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants' repeated attempts to reopen finally determined non-refoulement claims amount to an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicants failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his decision and the Applicants' persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined matters constituted an abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • The Applicants are prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.