FAROL CRISTOPHER RAFAEL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

FAROL CRISTOPHER RAFAEL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by section 37ZO; the Director's decision was lawful, made with proper appreciation of state protection and internal relocation and without procedural unfairness; the Applicant's repeated efforts to re‑litigate a finally determined claim constituted an abuse of process justifying an RPO under section 27 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2425
Parties
Applicant: Farol Cristopher Rafael; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL1259/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim +5 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farol Cristopher Rafael

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant may make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in assessing significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director failed to make proper inquiries or to give proper weight to alleged state acquiescence

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by section 37ZO; the Director's decision was lawful, made with proper appreciation of state protection and internal relocation and without procedural unfairness; the Applicant's repeated efforts to re‑litigate a finally determined claim constituted an abuse of process justifying an RPO under section 27 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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 without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a Judge designated by the Chief Judge