MACAGANDA ELEANOR BALBAG AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MACAGANDA ELEANOR BALBAG AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate the requisite significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and had no realistic prospect of success; the mother conceded reliance on the same grounds as the previous claim and the Director’s fact‑finding that the claim was unsubstantiated and state protection/internal relocation available was not displaced; the court made an RPO to prevent abuse of process given the applicants’ procedural history and conduct.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3508
Parties
1st Applicant (mother): Macaganda Eleanor Balbag; 2nd Applicant (son): Subbaiyah Amarkalam; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2025
Case Number
HCAL641/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused; RPO Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants; non‑compliance with Order 80 r.2 treated as mere irregularity
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Civil Procedure Non‑refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Macaganda Eleanor Balbag

1st Applicant (mother)

Subbaiyah Amarkalam

2nd Applicant (son)

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused; RPO Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants satisfied s.37ZO Immigration Ordinance (significant change and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether Director’s refusal was susceptible to judicial review on public law grounds
  3. 3 Whether applicants’ conduct amounted to abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate the requisite significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and had no realistic prospect of success; the mother conceded reliance on the same grounds as the previous claim and the Director’s fact‑finding that the claim was unsubstantiated and state protection/internal relocation available was not displaced; the court made an RPO to prevent abuse of process given the applicants’ procedural history and conduct.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants; non‑compliance with Order 80 r.2 treated as mere irregularity

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made prohibiting applicants from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals without leave of the Court of First Instance