BUNPAK REWADEE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BUNPAK REWADEE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and produced no new material that, when combined with prior evidence, would give a subsequent claim realistic prospects of success; the Director's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 744
Parties
Applicant: Bunpak Rewadee; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Case Number
HCAL2264/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Judicial Review Leave, Standard of Review (wednesbury), State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Judicial Review Leave +2 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bunpak Rewadee

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances since prior claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether the change, combined with prior material, gives a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and produced no new material that, when combined with prior evidence, would give a subsequent claim realistic prospects of success; the Director's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus was not amenable to judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; no leave granted.