ALI JABED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ALI JABED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director properly applied s37ZO and concluded the subsequent claim did not present significant new circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the applicant advanced no specific legal ground or new evidence sufficient to impugn that conclusion; given the history of repeated unsuccessful challenges on the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 535
Parties
Applicant: Ali Jabed; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL1423/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Jabed

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

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 was a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by refusal of time to obtain documents

Ratio Decidendi

The Director properly applied s37ZO and concluded the subsequent claim did not present significant new circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the applicant advanced no specific legal ground or new evidence sufficient to impugn that conclusion; given the history of repeated unsuccessful challenges on the same facts, an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process, so leave is refused and RPO imposed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting applicant from commencing or continuing any non-refoulement proceedings in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance