MAC THE LUC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MAC THE LUC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay (over two months/84 days) was inordinate and no good reason was provided; the proposed grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director properly applied s37ZO and relied on unchallenged prior findings (state protection and internal relocation) so there was no prospect of success; consequently leave was denied and a RPO was justified to prevent continued abuse of process and repeated relitigation of conclusively determined non-refoulement claims.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 1788
Parties
Applicant: Mac The Luc; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
HCAL339/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Procedural Fairness, Restricted Proceedings Order, Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Torture Risk +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mac The Luc

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for seeking leave should be extended
  2. 2 Whether Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was irrational or procedurally unfair (Wednesbury standard)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay (over two months/84 days) was inordinate and no good reason was provided; the proposed grounds were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; the Director properly applied s37ZO and relied on unchallenged prior findings (state protection and internal relocation) so there was no prospect of success; consequently leave was denied and a RPO was justified to prevent continued abuse of process and repeated relitigation of conclusively determined non-refoulement claims.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant

Orders

  • Extension of time refused for the application for leave to apply for judicial review
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed