AKBARUDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AKBARUDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; the decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim without viable grounds, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent ongoing abuse of process and wasted judicial resources.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 152
Parties
Applicant: Akbaruddin; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL930/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (refused) and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Proceedings, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claim Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akbaruddin

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Determined (refused) and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was denied procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; the decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim without viable grounds, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent ongoing abuse of process and wasted judicial resources.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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