Sunil Kumar v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 1593/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNO 1593 OF 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

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:

Introduction

1.This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 7 July 2025 refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection after his previous claim had been rejected by both the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) on all the applicable grounds.   

2.The Applicant is a 36-year-old national of India who first arrived in Hong Kong on 23 June 2014 as a visitor and with permission to remain as such up to 7 July 2014 when he did not depart and instead overstayed, and was arrested by police on 15 July 2014. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”) for refusing to join their party as he supported their rival Indian National Congress Party (“INC”).

Previous Non-Refoulement Claim  

3.By a Notice of Decision dated 22 November 2016 the Director rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

4.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from those local BJP supporters upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence or reason why he would be specifically targeted by those BJP supporters given that he was just a low ranking INC member and that after all these years that it is not accepted that there would still be any adverse interest in him, that in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for any BJP supporters to locate him.

5.The Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision was dismissed by the Board on 13 July 2018 after hearing him in evidence and submissions and upon finding no merits in his claim or appeal, and that it also confirmed the Director’s decision.

6.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was also refused by this Court on 22 April 2021 upon finding none of the proposed grounds for his intended challenge reasonably arguable, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision, and that there was no prospect of success in his intended application (HCAL 1405/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1092).

7.The Applicant never brought any appeal against the Court’s decision, and was on 31 October 2021 repatriated to India.

Request To Make Subsequent Claim

8.Almost 2 years later on 15 September 2023 the Applicant sneaked back into Hong Kong, and more than 1 year later on 22 December 2024 he surrendered to the Immigration Department and requested to make a subsequent claim on the basis that if refouled to India he fears of being harmed or killed by a fellow villager over some land dispute between the villager and the Applicant’s family in his home village.     

9.There are however constraints on a claimant who has previously made a non-refoulement claim to make a subsequent claim, as stipulated by Section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance as follows:

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has previously made a torture claim must not subsequently make another torture claim.

(2) A person may make a subsequent claim if the person provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that –

(a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and

(b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

(3) In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an immigration officer or the Appeal Board in relation to a torture claim previously made by the person.

(4) If an immigration officer decides that a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision.

(5) If an immigration officer decides that a person may not make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision, and the notice must also include the reasons for the decision.”

10.Accordingly, the Director by a letter dated 27 February 2025 required the Applicant to provide further information and evidence in writing in support of his request within 14 days, which he subsequently did by a letter dated 11 March 2025 by himself after the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”) refused to provide legal representation for his request, and in which the Applicant gave the following information without any corroborating documentary evidence in support of his request to make a subsequent claim:

(1)  That his father owned some farmland in his home village which his father rented out to a fellow villager from 2012 to 2017;

(2)  That since 2017 the villager refused to pay any rent or to return possession of the farmland to his father;

(3)  That his father had reported the matter to the local police who however failed to act as they considered the matter as a civil dispute that should be resolved between the Applicant’s father and the villager;

(4)  That upon returning to India the Applicant on his father’s instruction on a day in September 2022 went on the farmland to try to take possession but which led to a heated argument with the villager, during which the Applicant was beaten by the villager and his workers with wooden sticks and was driven away;

(5)  That one day in April 2023 the Applicant returned to the farmland to try to regain its possession, but was again attacked by the villager and workers who threatened to kill the Applicant next time if he dared to enter the land again;

(6)  As a result the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled from his home village to hide in various places, and on 8 September 2023 he departed India for China, and from there he came to Hong Kong to seek protection by subsequently raising his request to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim.         

11.By a Notice of Decision dated 7 July 2025 the Director refused to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim upon finding that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since his previous claim was determined, or that those changes when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of his previous claim would give his subsequent claim any realistic prospect of success, as his claim of fear of harm from the villager in his home village over the land dispute with his father that caused him to leave his country again to come to Hong Kong to seek protection is found to be not credible or believable, that there is no documentary evidence in support which he could and should have provided despite the ample time and opportunities for him to do so prior to his departure of India and with the knowledge and experience that he has gained from his previous claim as to the requirement and obligation for him to establish and substantiate his claim, that his credibility is further undermined by his failure to raise his request upon first arriving in Hong Kong in September 2023 until more than 1 year later in December 2024 when he surrendered to the Immigration Department, and that even if his account of events regarding the alleged land dispute prior to his departure of India were true that it was a localized private matter between his father and the villager in his home village without any official involvement that both state or police protection and reasonable internal relocation to other areas of his country away from his home village will be available to him to negate whatever risk that may arise from his intended subsequent claim.        

12.On 14 July 2025 the Applicant filed a Form 86 in these proceedings for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application.                 

13.In the premises and having considered the decision of the Director with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision or any failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s request to make a subsequent claim, and as I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review given the correct findings by the Director of the Applicant’s intended subsequent claim including that on the factual basis of even his own case that the land dispute between his father and the villager even if true is a private matter without any official involvement that both state protection and internal relocation will be available to the Applicant upon his refoulement to his home country to negate whatever risk that may arise from his intended subsequent claim, I accordingly refuse to grant leave and therefore dismiss his application.

Restricted Proceedings Order

14.Given the facts that the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim has already been finally and conclusively determined in the previous proceedings, ending with the order of this Court dated 22 April 2021 which he thereafter never brought any appeal, but that the Applicant is still trying to re-litigate his case by making this subsequent claim without any proper or valid basis and that its credibility was rightly rejected by the Director, I shall next consider whether it would be appropriate to make a Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”) against him.

15.Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 provides as follows:

“Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings

(1) The Court of First Instance may, on the application of the Secretary for Justice or an affected person, make an order that –

(a) no legal proceedings shall without the leave of the Court of First Instance be instituted by the person against whom the order is made; and

(b) any legal proceedings instituted by that person in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance.

(2) The Court of First Instance may not make an order under subsection (1) unless –

(a) it is satisfied that the person against whom the order is to be made has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; and

(b) it has heard the person against whom the order is to be made or given him an opportunity of being heard.

(3) An order made under subsection (1) –

(a) may be made on such terms and conditions as the Court of First Instance thinks just; and

(b) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.

…”

16.Relevantly, Section 27A also provides:

“(1) Leave for the institution or continuance of any legal proceedings by a person who is the subject of an order for the time being in force under section 2791) shall not be given unless the Court of First Instance is satisfied that –

(a) the proceedings are not an abuse of the process of the court in question; and

(b) there are reasonable grounds for the proceedings.

(2)  No appeal lies from a decision of the Court of First Instance granting or refusing leave required under this section, unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Court of First Instance.”

17.In Etik Iswanti v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2021] HKCFI 1589, Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) examined the relevant principles for making an order under Section 27 against a non-refoulement claimant to prevent him or her from commencing vexatious legal proceedings which sought to re-open a non-refoulement claim which had already been finally and conclusively determined in previous proceedings, and held that repeated actions evidencing a calculated attempt by a claimant to delay an inevitable judgment or its execution or a refusal to accept the unfavourable final result of a litigation or seeking to re-open matters already determined in a previous action may be regarded as vexatious legal proceedings which would justify a RPO being made under the section.  

18.His Lordship in the subsequent case of Re Wahyuni v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991 (again sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) went on to hold that apart from Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, the Court has an inherent jurisdiction which it can exercise on its own motion to make a RPO to prevent similar abuses of the court’s process by non-refoulement claimants, as the underlying purpose of the court’s jurisdiction to make a RPO is the prevention of abuse of process ([9] – [10]).

19.In the subsequent jointly heard appeals of Siti Khotimah v Director of Immigration, CACV 420/2021 and Reza Sahin v Director of Immigration, CACV 422/2021 ([2022] HKCA 327, 28 February 2022), Poon CJHC in giving judgment of the Court of Appeal also held that where a judge of the Court of First Instance (“CFI judge”) makes a RPO, he may where appropriate properly exercise his power under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to also make a restrictive order against vexatious appeals under which the non-refoulement claimant concerned cannot appeal without first obtaining leave from him or another CFI judge designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court upon observing procedural fairness by putting the non-refoulement claimant concerned on notice and giving him or her the opportunity to address the court before making the restrictive order ([38] –[40]).        

20.In the present case, it is clear from the above that the Applicant’s conduct in seeking persistently to re-litigate his non-refoulement claims without viable grounds amounts to an abuse of process, and that unless a RPO is made against him, to which he was unable to answer or raise any valid objection at the hearing, I am convinced that the Applicant will likely continue to do so and/or to make vexatious appeals, thereby wasting further precious time and resources of the Judiciary.

21.Accordingly, I make the following order:

(1)  The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to or touching upon or leading to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court, or any appeal, including this Order, without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance;

(2)  All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to 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 his 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 his 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 designated Judge 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 this Court or the designated Judge for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed;

(7)  Notice of each decision by 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 designated Judge, 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 under this Order, unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Judge;

(11)  This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this Order; and

(12)  A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

Disposition 

22.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

23.A RPO in terms of paragraph 21 be made against the Applicant.  

Dated the 18^th day of September 2025

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