BUI THI THIEU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

BUI THI THIEU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified because the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process by repeating the same claims.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 294
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Thieu; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL2172/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Immigration/non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; restricted proceedings order (RPO) made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Thieu

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Immigration/non Refoulement Decision / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied section 37ZO (significant change and realistic prospect) for a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director's decision was Wednesbury/unlawful or procedurally defective such that leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  3. 3 Whether a restricted proceedings order (RPO) should be made to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified because the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process by repeating the same claims.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; restricted proceedings order (RPO) made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing 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 under this order to 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