LILIK SUMRIYAH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LILIK SUMRIYAH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicants were 17 months late with no good explanation, they failed to establish a significant change of circumstances or any reasonably arguable ground to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings of state protection and relocation, and the Director did not err in law or act unfairly; an RPO was warranted because the applicants persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims thereby abusing the court process.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 902
Parties
1st Applicant: Lilik Sumriyah; 2nd Applicant: Muhammad Mahendra; 3rd Applicant: Lilik Sumriyah Hashibur Rahman Obaiyed; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL1503/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Delay and Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Vexatious Litigation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) +4 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lilik Sumriyah

1st Applicant

Muhammad Mahendra

2nd Applicant

Lilik Sumriyah Hashibur Rahman Obaiyed

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants may make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established good reason to extend time for a judicial review leave application
  3. 3 Whether the Director erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in refusing leave to make a subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants were 17 months late with no good explanation, they failed to establish a significant change of circumstances or any reasonably arguable ground to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings of state protection and relocation, and the Director did not err in law or act unfairly; an RPO was warranted because the applicants persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims thereby abusing the court process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave application dismissed
  • Applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance