|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
Dang Huu Luong
|
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 To:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1.
This is the Applicant’s application by Form 86 filed on 27 August 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) in his Notice of Decision dated 21 August 2025 (the “2025 Notice”) refusing his request to make a subsequent claim (the “Request”).
2.
The Applicant is a Vietnamese national. He claimed he had sneaked into Hong Kong on 27 August 2023 and made a non-refoulement claim by written signification dated 31 August 2023 (the “previous claim”). His previous claim was rejected by the Director’s Notice of Decision dated 15 November 2023 (the “2023 Notice”). His appeal against the 2023 Notice was dismissed by the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 1 March 2024 (the “Board’s Decision”). On 8 March 2024, he applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision in HCAL 444/2024, but he withdrew his application on 15 April 2025. On 8 May 2024, he applied to re-open his leave application. But his application was refused by the Court of First Instance on 20 May 2025. His previous claim was finally determined and has run its full course.
3.
On the same day as the Applicant applied to re-open his leave application, he made the Request for making a subsequent claim by letter. He also requested legal assistance to prosecute his Request. His case was referred to the Duty Lawyer Service (the “DLS”). But the DLS refused to act for him. In the immigration officer’s letter dated 3 June 2025 in English with Vietnamese translation, the Applicant was informed of the decision of the DLS and advised to arrange his legal representation if he saw fit. He was reminded of the requirements for making a subsequent claim and to provide further evidence, if any, on or before 17 June 2025 and advised of the procedure in making extension of time to comply. He was also informed that if the department did not hear from him on or before the deadline, his Request would be assessed based on all available information only. The Applicant did not respond. After considering all available information and evidence, the immigration officer on behalf of the Director rejected his Request by the 2025 Notice. He now applies for leave to apply for judicial review of that 2025 Notice.
The Applicant’s previous claim
4.
The Applicant’s personal background, the factual background leading to his previous claim, the basis of his previous claim and the arguments he advanced, the finding of the Board and the reasons for its Decision are set out in details in the Board’s Decision. These will not be repeated here. The
Back
