RITA-SETIANI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RITA-SETIANI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant's additional material amounted to updates of the original claim and hearsay that did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in the Director's process and the factual findings were not irrational; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2716
Parties
Applicant: Rita-Setiani; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL1173/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; RPO made against applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order, Judicial Review Leave, Abuse of Process, Screening Procedure
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Unified Screening Mechanism Restricted Proceedings Order Judicial Review Leave +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rita-Setiani

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director breached procedural fairness by not conducting a screening interview or by failing to identify which grounds were rejected
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's additional material constituted a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant's additional material amounted to updates of the original claim and hearsay that did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in the Director's process and the factual findings were not irrational; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; RPO 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
  • All leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated judge