IBRAHIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

IBRAHIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same unsubstantiated facts previously rejected, his evidence was cumulative, hearsay or lacked credibility, there was no significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success, and the court lawfully imposed a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 689
Parties
Applicant: Ibrahim; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL69/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave and Restricted Proceedings Order (leave Refused; RPO Made)
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Credibility and Hearsay, Internal Relocation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Standard of Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +4 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ibrahim

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave and Restricted Proceedings Order (leave Refused; RPO Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subsequent claim satisfies the s.37ZO significant change requirement to give a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the Director's Decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of the court's process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same unsubstantiated facts previously rejected, his evidence was cumulative, hearsay or lacked credibility, there was no significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success, and the court lawfully imposed a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant.

Orders

  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing any existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court, and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court.