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

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

Leave was refused because the additional materials did not show a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previous evidence, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the applicants were attempting to re-litigate previously decided facts and their conduct constituted an abuse of process justifying a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1118
Parties
1st Applicant: Wasinah; 2nd Applicant: Wasinah Janpul; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Case Number
HCAL148/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage Notification of Judge's Decision (leave Refused)
Outcome
Joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Leave refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (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 Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wasinah

1st Applicant

Wasinah Janpul

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage Notification of Judge's Decision (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicants' subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the additional materials constituted a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct amounted to abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the additional materials did not show a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previous evidence, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the applicants were attempting to re-litigate previously decided facts and their conduct constituted an abuse of process justifying a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order.

Court Disposition

Joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Leave refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants

Orders

  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing any existing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court, and any appeal, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All applications for leave shall 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.