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

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

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, undertook anxious scrutiny, afforded procedural fairness (including DLS referral), and lawfully found the applicant offered no sufficient new evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success; the medical evidence did not meet the very high...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6209
Parties
Applicant: Fayaz Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL1253/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused at First Instance (notification of Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Unified Screening Mechanism, Bill of Rights (bor 2 and BOR 3), Procedural Fairness and Legal Assistance, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Unified Screening Mechanism Bill of Rights (bor 2 and BOR 3) +2 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fayaz Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused at First Instance (notification of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s37ZO threshold for a subsequent non-refoulement claim (significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success) was met
  2. 2 Whether claimant was entitled to legal assistance for the subsequent-claim process as a matter of procedural fairness
  3. 3 Whether the immigration officer’s decision was irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, undertook anxious scrutiny, afforded procedural fairness (including DLS referral), and lawfully found the applicant offered no sufficient new evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success; the medical evidence did not meet the very high exceptional BOR 3 threshold and the decision was not Wednesbury‑unreasonable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused (notification dated 12 December 2025)