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

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

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with earlier material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3098
Parties
Applicant: Ali Majid; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1220/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit a Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Under S27 High Court Ordinance, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Immigration Ordinance Unified Screening Mechanism +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Majid

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit a Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness or error of law in the Director's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with earlier material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision and no prospect of success in judicial review, and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent continued vexatious relitigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave 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 such other Judge as designated by the Chief Judge