ABDUR RAHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ABDUR RAHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant relied on the same or similar facts as his previous finally determined claim, produced no credible evidence of a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was imposed to prevent further abusive re-litigation on the same facts.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2456
Parties
Applicant: Abdur Rahman; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL533/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Papers Refusing Leave and Imposing Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Law Procedural Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +3 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdur Rahman

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Papers Refusing Leave and Imposing Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there is a realistic prospect of success warranting leave to apply for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of process by repeated litigation on the same facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant relied on the same or similar facts as his previous finally determined claim, produced no credible evidence of a significant change in circumstances under s37ZO, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was imposed to prevent further abusive re-litigation on the same facts.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.