BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully concluded the subsequent claim relied on the same facts rejected in earlier proceedings, the new material was hearsay and not credible, there was no significant change under section 37ZO and therefore no realistic prospect of success; given...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 184
Parties
Applicant: Bappy Shahajada Murad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
HCAL1116/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration's Refusal of Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Asylum and Refugee Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non‑refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bappy Shahajada Murad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration's Refusal of Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent non‑refoulement claim under section 37ZO
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully concluded the subsequent claim relied on the same facts rejected in earlier proceedings, the new material was hearsay and not credible, there was no significant change under section 37ZO and therefore no realistic prospect of success; given the history and intent to relitigate for the purpose of remaining in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • Leave applications to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge