ROHIMAH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ROHIMAH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully concluded the applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances that, with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 632
Parties
1st Applicant: Rohimah; 2nd Applicant: Rohimah Zeina Az Zahra; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1238/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (judicial Review Leave Stage)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; leave refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO, Judicial Review Leave, Restricted Proceedings Order, Risk of Persecution, Torture/cidtp, State Protection, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S.37 ZO Judicial Review Leave 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rohimah

1st Applicant

Rohimah Zeina Az Zahra

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused (judicial Review Leave Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under s.37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's fact-finding was Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully concluded the applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances that, with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; and an RPO was warranted to prevent abuse of process given repeated rehearing on the same facts.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed