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

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

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by concluding the Applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and the decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted under s27 High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent, vexatious attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2421
Parties
Applicant: Ali Mohammed; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Case Number
HCAL689/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Unified Screening Mechanism, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Claims Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Mohammed

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether there was any procedural unfairness or error of law in the Director's decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by concluding the Applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and the decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted under s27 High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent, vexatious attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All applications for leave under this order must 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