AVTAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

AVTAR SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Director rationally found the purported new evidence to be unsubstantiated/hearsay and that even if accepted it did not show a significant change or realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; no procedural unfairness was shown; and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 187
Parties
Applicant: Avtar Singh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL1138/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application and Hearing on Application for Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Judicial Review Leave, Restricted Proceedings Order, Screening Procedure, Credibility and Fresh Evidence
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional and Human Rights Law Procedural Law (abuse of Process) Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Judicial Review Leave Restricted Proceedings Order +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avtar Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application and Hearing on Application for Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was procedural impropriety in failure to conduct a screening interview or to consider COI and UNCAT guidance
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director rationally found the purported new evidence to be unsubstantiated/hearsay and that even if accepted it did not show a significant change or realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; no procedural unfairness was shown; and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is made prohibiting the applicant from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance.