|
HCAL 2143/2023
[2024] HKCFI 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2143 of 2023
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Megi Triana |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Respondent |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the applicant.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 October 2023 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing her subsequent claim of HCAL 987 of 2019 (the “previous claim”) under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the “Ordinance”).
2. The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against her since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert her non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.
3. The applicant appeared before the Court on 8 January 2024.
4. The applicant admitted that she relied upon the same reasons in her previous claim in support of her application for subsequent claim.
The procedural history
5. The applicant is a national of Indonesia, aged 44. After her employment contract in Hong Kong was terminated on 11 December 2009, she was permitted to stay as a visitor until 25 December 2009. However, she did not depart and had overstayed since 26 December 2009. On 8 June 2010, she was arrested by the police for overstaying. On 18 and 27 November 2015, she lodged a non-refoulement claim.
6. Her non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department was on the grounds of Torture risk under Part VIIC of the Ordinance, BOR 2 risk, Right to Life under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, the BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention.
7. Her claim was rejected by the Director by Notice of Decision dated 13 March 2018 on all applicable grounds.
8. She appealed to the Torture Claims Board. By Decision dated 28 February 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed her appeal.
9. She applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court of the First Instance dismissed her application on 3 July 2023.
10. She applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection by written representations respectively dated 14 August 2023, 15 August 2023 and 17 August 2023.
11. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused her application.
The subsequent claim application
12. The factual basis of her previous claim is that if she is refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband and her husband’s creditors.
13. The Director found that her previous claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.
14. The Board considered the applicant’s evidence. It accepted that the applicant was a victim of domestic violence and was subjected to the threats from the creditors. However, the Board also found that she would not face the similar antagonism because of the lapse of time. On her own evidence, she was not contacted by any of them since 2008. Meanwhile, while she was in Banten for 7 months before coming to Hong Kong, neither her husband nor the creditors were able to locate her. There was also no evidence that her husband still held adverse interests on her. Further, no injuries that attained a minimum level of severity were inflicted on her. In any event, state protection and internal relocation were both available to the applicant.
15. Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, she has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realist prospect of success.
16. The immigration officer considered the applicant’s statement and further materials. He had noted that she is now asking for a longer time to stay in Hong Kong because she is getting married with the Hong Kong resident. However, he found that her fear remains originated from her creditor. Also, state protection and internal relocation option are still available to her. As such, her alleged fear does not constitute any significant change of circumstances, which warrant her making a subsequent claim.
17. The Director did not accept that there was significant change of circumstances, which, coupled with the material in her previous claim, would give her subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success. Thus, he refused her application for the subsequent claim.
18. In my view, the Director was correct to take that view.
The application for leave to apply for judicial review application
19. The applicant filed Form 86 dated 30 November 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
20. In support of her application, she submitted that the creditors might kill her if she returns to Indonesia.
Discussion
21. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact-finding power. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 §14 (1).
22. The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant admitted that she relied on the same reasons in her previous claim in support of her subsequent claim.
23. I find that there is no realistic prospect of success in her subsequent claim, I dismiss her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
The RPO
24. The Director’s findings show that the applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of her previous claim for a subsequent claim, which will amount to an abuse of the process. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a RPO and the extended order against her. See paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.
25. RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Direcctor of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991, by Hon. Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance), 6 July 2021, § 9 and Re Uddin Borhan v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 2129, § 25.
26. In my view, the fact that the applicant is entitled to apply for subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Ordinance is irrelevant so far as her intention is clearly an abuse of the process. The application should be viewed together with the procedural history of the case.
27. For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why RPO should not be made against her. The applicant has been explained the proposed restricted proceedings order before this hearing.
28. Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against her, the applicant said she has nothing to say.
29. Having considered the applicant’s explanation, I am satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only. I shall therefore make the RPO in terms below:
(1) The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
(2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to the Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or in his absence, the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.
(3) At least 7 days before filing any application for leave under paragraph (1), the Applicant do notify in writing each intended defendant or respondent of her intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if any response is received by the Applicant from any such intended defendant or respondent, that the Applicant do file a copy of each such response together with the said application for leave.
(4) Any intended defendant or respondent having notice of such intended proceedings be entitled but under no obligation to place before the Court written representations regarding the same.
(5) All applications made pursuant to this order and all ancillary matters be dealt with by the court on paper and without any oral hearing unless the Court should otherwise direct.
(6) If the Applicant should issue fresh proceedings falling or which may fall within the terms of paragraph (1) without first seeking the Court’s leave, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court or any Master or Judge, such fresh proceedings be referred to the Court for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed.
(7) Notice of each decision by this Court or the designated Judge made pursuant to this order be given in writing to the Applicant and to each intended defendant or respondent named in the fresh proceedings.
(8) Whether or not any fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the Court, if a defendant or respondent is served with such proceedings without the relevant documents being accompanied by either an order granting leave to commence such proceedings or a direction that leave to commence such proceedings is not required, such defendant or respondent be entitled to make no response to such service pending notification of the court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and that time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such proceedings be deemed extended accordingly.
(9) No more than one leave application under paragraph (1) may be made by the Applicant within any period of 3 months.
(10) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave within this Order unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Court.
(11) This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order.
(12) A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.
DISPOSITION
30. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
31. RPO in terms of paragraph 29 be made against the applicant.
Dated the 7th day of March 2024
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 7/3/2024
Megi Triana
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 7/3/2024
Director of Immigration
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
L/M (28086) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (Formerly RBCZ/14381/15 and RBCZ/1137/10)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|