AILENE CAPILAR PABILING v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AILENE CAPILAR PABILING v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director validly refused the request to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide any written evidence satisfying s37ZO(2) of a significant change and of a realistic prospect of success; the leave application was substantially out of time with no good reason and no arguable...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 983
Parties
Applicant: Ailene Capilar Pabiling; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL280/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order (final Disposition)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Torture Claims Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ailene Capilar Pabiling

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the court should extend time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent abuse of process by repeated non-refoulement claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Director validly refused the request to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide any written evidence satisfying s37ZO(2) of a significant change and of a realistic prospect of success; the leave application was substantially out of time with no good reason and no arguable merits, so extension was refused and leave dismissed; an RPO was appropriate because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined claims thereby constituting abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

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