AKHTAR JUNAID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AKHTAR JUNAID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO, correctly found the subsequent claim relied on the same or similar facts without a significant change to give a realistic prospect of success, and made no error of law or procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2534
Parties
Applicant: Akhtar Junaid; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL562/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application
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
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akhtar Junaid

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change in circumstances such that the subsequent claim has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO, correctly found the subsequent claim relied on the same or similar facts without a significant change to give a realistic prospect of success, and made no error of law or procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
  • (1) The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.