RISKY HARDIANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RISKY HARDIANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same rejected facts, there was no significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success, the immigration officer was entitled to disbelieve the new allegations and find state protection/internal relocation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1117
Parties
Applicant: Risky Hardianti; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Case Number
HCAL96/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Restricted Proceedings Order, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process, Subsequent Claim, Credibility Findings
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Restricted Proceedings Order Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Abuse of Process Subsequent Claim +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Risky Hardianti

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was 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 (RPO)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same rejected facts, there was no significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success, the immigration officer was entitled to disbelieve the new allegations and find state protection/internal relocation available, and the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process warranting an RPO.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court and any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.