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

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

Leave was refused because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO and therefore his proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success in light of prior final determinations (including findings of availability of state...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 626
Parties
Applicant: Gurpreet Singh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2023
Case Number
HCAL1502/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Litigation, Abuse of Process, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurpreet Singh

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director’s decision was procedurally unfair or irrational
  3. 3 Whether prior adverse findings (state protection and internal relocation) preclude a realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO and therefore his proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success in light of prior final determinations (including findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation); the Director’s decision showed no error of law or procedural unfairness; an RPO was warranted because the applicant had persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim constituting an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon 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 designated Judge