LASMINI AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LASMINI AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicants failed to establish the statutory threshold under section 37ZO because the additional material merely repeated previously rejected grounds and did not demonstrate a significant change or a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4358
Parties
1st Applicant: Lasmini; 2nd Applicant: Alus Aamir Samuel, alias Aamir Alus Aamir Samuel; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1018/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Immigration Ordinance / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Applicants' joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Civil Procedure Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lasmini

1st Applicant

Alus Aamir Samuel, alias Aamir Alus Aamir Samuel

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Immigration Ordinance / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants satisfied section 37ZO (significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether the Director/immigration officer lawfully and rationally concluded there was no realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct amounted to an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish the statutory threshold under section 37ZO because the additional material merely repeated previously rejected grounds and did not demonstrate a significant change or a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applicants' joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused and application dismissed
  • Restricted Proceedings Order: applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals without leave of the Court of First Instance