PUJI LESTARI TUMIJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

PUJI LESTARI TUMIJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants’ 5.5 month delay was substantial and unexplained; their proposed grounds lacked any prospect of success and did not show a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO; accordingly leave was dismissed and a Restricted Proceedings Order was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1810
Parties
1st Applicant: Puji Lestari Tumijan; 2nd Applicant: Mir Sahall; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL1507/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Immigration Decision / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Puji Lestari Tumijan

1st Applicant

Mir Sahall

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Immigration Decision / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for a late application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' proposed judicial review grounds are reasonably arguable or have any prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director correctly applied s37ZO criteria for allowing a subsequent non-refoulement claim

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicants’ 5.5 month delay was substantial and unexplained; their proposed grounds lacked any prospect of success and did not show a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO; accordingly leave was dismissed and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims constituted an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed