ADJAGBA ROBERT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ADJAGBA ROBERT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to produce sufficient new evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO was justified to prevent habitual re-litigation and abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 254
Parties
Applicant: Adjagba Robert; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL1688/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claims (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Proceedings, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claims (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Vexatious Proceedings +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adjagba Robert

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a "significant change of circumstances" under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or procedurally in refusing permission to file a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made to prevent abuse of process by repeated re-litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to produce sufficient new evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO was justified to prevent habitual re-litigation and abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without prior leave of this Court or designated Judge
  • All leave applications to be made to this Court or the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge