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

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

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with previously submitted material, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was made because the applicant was attempting to relitigate the same facts and would thereby abuse the court process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2579
Parties
Applicant: Bui Thi Thuy; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1266/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Judicial Review Leave, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Judicial Review Leave 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bui Thi Thuy

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances which, together with previously submitted material, gives the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct constitutes abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with previously submitted material, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was made because the applicant was attempting to relitigate the same facts and would thereby abuse the court process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All leave applications under this order to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or the designated judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or other judge designated by the Chief Judge.