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

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

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO or to show that any change together with prior material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings on state protection and internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined claims, a RPO was justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction, with specified leave and procedural conditions.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1822
Parties
Applicant: Ali Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL518/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Litigation, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Public Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or acted with procedural unfairness in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim constitute an abuse of process or vexatious litigation justifying a RPO under s27 High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO or to show that any change together with prior material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings on state protection and internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined claims, a RPO was justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction, with specified leave and procedural conditions.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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