BIND ASHOKE KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BIND ASHOKE KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that would give his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3230
Parties
Applicant: Bind Ashoke Kumar; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1390/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement / Immigration) / Decision on Application for Leave; Disposition and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public/procedural Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bind Ashoke Kumar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement / Immigration) / Decision on Application for Leave; Disposition and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO to justify a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration erred in law or acted irrationally in refusing the subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is re-litigating decided issues and abusing process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that would give his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's and Board's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the applicant was re-litigating settled matters thereby amounting to abuse of process, and an RPO was justified to prevent further abusive proceedings.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) prohibiting applicant from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without leave of the Court