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

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

The Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was lawful: there was no significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previous material, gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the findings were not Wednesbury...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 219
Parties
Applicant: Nuryanti; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL1157/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Consideration of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Judicial Review Leave Stage, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Judicial Review Leave Stage +3 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nuryanti

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Consideration of Restricted Proceedings Order

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 in circumstances giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was lawful: there was no significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previous material, gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated and the findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable. Consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • Leave applications to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge as specified