AHMAD ASHFAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AHMAD ASHFAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in section 37ZO because he did not demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or any new material giving his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the history of repeated,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4772
Parties
Applicant: Ahmad Ashfaq; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Case Number
HCAL1740/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Non Refoulement, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Anxious Scrutiny and Supervisory Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Non Refoulement Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Ashfaq

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a realistic prospect of success to justify leave for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in section 37ZO because he did not demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or any new material giving his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the history of repeated, unsuccessful attempts and the real risk of further abusive proceedings, the court lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order with specified procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of court process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • Applications for leave to commence or continue such proceedings to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge