BUI THI HOA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BUI THI HOA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Time was not extended and leave dismissed because the applicant had an inordinate five-month delay without explanation and the intended challenge lacked any arguable merit: the Director reasonably found no significant change of circumstances and lawfully applied the statutory test in s37ZO; there was no error of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1567
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Hoa; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL482/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused (decision Dated 14 June 2023)
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Risk Assessment, Country of Origin Information, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Extension of Time for Judicial Review +5 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Hoa

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused (decision Dated 14 June 2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should extend time for an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances supporting a subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Time was not extended and leave dismissed because the applicant had an inordinate five-month delay without explanation and the intended challenge lacked any arguable merit: the Director reasonably found no significant change of circumstances and lawfully applied the statutory test in s37ZO; there was no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision dated 26 July 2022 refused
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed