ESQUILLO RIAH MAE ORDIZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 1008/2022

[2022] HKCFI 3752

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1008 of 2022

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court;

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 28 April 2022 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing her subsequent claim of HCAL 196 of 2018 (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. The applicant appeared before the Court on 31 October 2022.

The procedural history

3.  The applicant is a national of the Philippines. She came to Hong Kong in March 2012 as a domestic worker. Upon termination of her employment contract, she did not leave Hong Kong. On 15 October 2015 she surrendered to the Immigration Department. She lodged her non-refoulement claim by way of a written signification dated 1 June 2016 on the grounds of Torture risk under 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.

4.  Her claim was rejected by the Director by a Notice of Decision dated 9 December 2016.

5.  She appealed to the Torture Claim Board (the “Board”). By its Decision dated 9 January 2018 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board rejected her appeal on all applicable grounds.

6.  She applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and the application was rejected by the Court by its Order dated 20 November 2018 (the “Court’s Order”).

7.  Her application for leave to appeal out of time against the Court’s Order to the Court of Appeal and her application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 10 January 2020.

8.  Her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2021.

9.  Her application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was dismissed on 17 November 2021.

10.  She applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection by letter dated 7 January 2022.

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 feared that she would be killed by her ex-boyfriend Joel Visitacion (“Joel”), whom she suspected to be a member of the New People’s Army (“NPA”).

13.  The Director did not accept the Applicant faced any risk that warranted non-refoulement protection. He also considered reasonable state protection and internal relocation were available to the applicant in any event. She appealed to the Board.

14.  The Adjudicator was prepared to accept that Joel had been abusive towards the Applicant. However, Joel had not caused serious injuries to the applicant and had not contacted the Applicant for a long time. The Board dismissed her appeal.

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.  In support of her application, the applicant has submitted a statement to the Director, in which she set out the following changes of circumstances:

a.  she will be harmed or killed by Joel;

b.  she will be arrested or even killed by the Philippines authorities because she was framed of false charges of being an active member of the drug and prostitution mafia; and

c.  she will suffer from health risk due to the global pandemic.

17.  The first ground is the same ground for she previous claim. The second ground will not sustain because she should return to the Philippines to surrender herself to its jurisdiction. The third reason simply does not apply as it is not confined to the Philippines. The Director did not accept that there is significant change of circumstances, which, coupled with the previous claim, will give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success of her subsequent claim.

The application for leave to apply for judicial review application

18.  The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of her application. She said that she is a genuine asylum seeker; that the Director should go to her country to understand the situations there and that if she had not fled, she would have been killed.

19.  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).

20.  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 upon the same facts in her previous claim for her subsequent claim.

21.  There is no valid ground from the applicant to challenge the Director’s Decision.

22.  The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s Decision. The Director’s finding of the facts is not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

23.  Since 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 had 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.

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

Form CALL-1