SUNIL KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SUNIL KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Director correctly found the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient corroborating evidence, the account was not credible and was delayed, and even on the applicant’s own account any risk was localized and negated by state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success. A RPO was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re‑litigate finally determined claims constituting an abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4071
Parties
Applicant: Sunil Kumar; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1593/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Subsequent Torture Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Credibility and Corroboration, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Subsequent Torture Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process +3 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunil Kumar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO to permit a subsequent non‑refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's account was credible and corroborated
  3. 3 Whether state protection and internal relocation were available to negate risk on return

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director correctly found the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient corroborating evidence, the account was not credible and was delayed, and even on the applicant’s own account any risk was localized and negated by state protection and reasonable internal relocation; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success. A RPO was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re‑litigate finally determined claims constituting an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court, or any appeal, without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.
  • All leave applications under this order to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a Judge designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court.