Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Torture and hkbor articles 2 and 3

Legal area

Court

22 May 2023

KORIATUL KAROMAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1355
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL474/2023

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were vague, unparticularised and not reasonably arguable; the Director lawfully applied s37ZO by finding the proposed subsequent claim materially the same as the finally determined claim and that no sufficient evidence showed a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; given the repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined issues, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
6 Jan 2023

RINI ARTINI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL631/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the decision involved no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims and absence of merit, a RPO under s27/27A and the Court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.
6 May 2022

LUONG THI DAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1334
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL154/2022

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision and no arguable prospect of success on judicial review. Given persistent attempts to re-litigate matters already finally determined and the absence of viable grounds, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was necessary and justif…
8 Oct 2021

ALIM ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3033
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL803/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient new evidence under s37ZO to give any realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was found in the Director's assessment; an RPO was justified because the Applicant persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined claim, constituting abuse of process warranting restriction under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Hong Kong Case Law

KORIATUL KAROMAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RINI ARTINI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LUONG THI DAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ALIM ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]