DO VAN MANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

DO VAN MANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Director correctly applied section 37ZO and the subsequent claim relied on essentially the same grounds as previously determined; there was no significant change of circumstances and the Director's findings that state protection and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3731
Parties
Applicant: Do Van Mang; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1305/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order (leave Refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Do Van Mang

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Making of Restricted Proceedings Order (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to obtain leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Director correctly applied section 37ZO and the subsequent claim relied on essentially the same grounds as previously determined; there was no significant change of circumstances and the Director's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be unlawful; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and proportionate to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals 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 designated judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.