HAIDER SUFYAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

HAIDER SUFYAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give any subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; prior adverse credibility findings were properly relied upon. Given repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent vexatious proceedings.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1543
Parties
Applicant: Haider Sufyan; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL391/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Ancillary Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Restricted Proceedings Order Vexatious Litigation Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo) +2 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haider Sufyan

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Ancillary Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director was entitled to take into account adverse credibility findings from earlier proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give any subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; prior adverse credibility findings were properly relied upon. Given repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent vexatious proceedings.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.
  • All leave applications must be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge.