LE THI HANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LE THI HANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show the statutory threshold in s37ZO of a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness under Wednesbury; repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2122
Parties
Applicant: Le Thi Hang; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 August 2023
Case Number
HCAL1076/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk Unified Screening Mechanism Restricted Proceedings Order +4 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Thi Hang

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant may make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly in refusing the subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the applicant failed to show the statutory threshold in s37ZO of a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness under Wednesbury; repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim constitute an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27/27A High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge