MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MANGOBA MELODY PIEDAD AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change in circumstances that, taken with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2030
Parties
1st Applicant: Mangoba Melody Piedad; 2nd Applicant: Galang Kobe John Andrei M; 3rd Applicant: Galang Kyler Johan Rafael; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL12/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application / Judicial Review Leave Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Minor Representation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mangoba Melody Piedad

1st Applicant

Galang Kobe John Andrei M

2nd Applicant

Galang Kyler Johan Rafael

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application / Judicial Review 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 there has been a significant change in circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether procedural unfairness arose from minors not having legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show any significant change in circumstances that, taken with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting applicants from commencing or continuing fresh non-refoulement proceedings in the High Court without leave