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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was neither procedurally unfair nor Wednesbury unreasonable; because the applicant was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3147
Parties
Applicant: Abdul Basheer; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1350/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Decided; Restricted Proceedings Order Hearing and Notification of Judge's Decision
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave, Credibility Findings, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Refugee Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Basheer

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Decided; Restricted Proceedings Order Hearing and Notification of Judge's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Director breached procedural fairness (failure to interview)
  3. 3 Whether the Director's factual findings were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was neither procedurally unfair nor Wednesbury unreasonable; because the applicant was attempting to re-litigate settled matters and likely to abuse process, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent further abusive proceedings.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without leave of that court.
  • All applications for leave under this order shall be made to Deputy Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge.