TRAN BINH LUAN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

TRAN BINH LUAN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused because the applicants were substantially and inordinately delayed (approximately six months) without a good reason; their proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director’s decision showed no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no sufficient change of circumstances under s37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicants have persistently sought to re-litigate conclusively determined non-refoulement claims, constituting abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2591
Parties
1st Applicant: Tran Binh Luan; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Thi Trang; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1429/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Extension of Time for Judicial Review +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tran Binh Luan

1st Applicant

Nguyen Thi Trang

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the leave application
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was legally unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the applicants were substantially and inordinately delayed (approximately six months) without a good reason; their proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; the Director’s decision showed no error of law or procedural unfairness and there was no sufficient change of circumstances under s37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicants have persistently sought to re-litigate conclusively determined non-refoulement claims, constituting abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicants

Orders

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