THING BIJAY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

THING BIJAY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was lawful: the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior materials, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's fact-finding was not irrational or procedurally unfair;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2012
Parties
Applicant: Thing Bijay; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL351/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thing Bijay

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was lawful: the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior materials, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's fact-finding was not irrational or procedurally unfair; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Restricted Proceedings Order: 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.