NURSANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NURSANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Court concluded there was no realistic prospect and that an RPO was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2564
Parties
Applicant: Nursanti; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 October 2023
Case Number
HCAL1106/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Heard; Leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nursanti

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Heard; Leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Court concluded there was no realistic prospect and that an RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of process by repeated relitigation of the same facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications under this order to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated Judge