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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or to show that any change combined with previous material would give...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 480
Parties
Applicant: Supriatik; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Case Number
HCAL702/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non‑refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Ancillary Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim Threshold (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (vexatious Proceedings), Section 27 High Court Ordinance, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Non‑refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim Threshold (s37 Zo) +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supriatik

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 Ancillary Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non‑refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success to permit a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether there was any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or to show that any change combined with previous material would give her subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; given repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and bar fresh non‑refoulement proceedings without leave of a CFI judge.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made

Orders

  • Leave to apply for Judicial Review refused
  • A Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting the Applicant from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon any non‑refoulement claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance