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

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

The Director did not err in refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate in writing a significant change of circumstances which, together with earlier material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2398
Parties
Applicant: Juwel; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2021
Case Number
HCAL618/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made preventing fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave for a limited period.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim, Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Proceedings, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Unified Screening Mechanism +4 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Juwel

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change in circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether leave to apply for judicial review is reasonably arguable

Ratio Decidendi

The Director did not err in refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate in writing a significant change of circumstances which, together with earlier material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims without viable grounds, an RPO under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made preventing fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave for a limited period.

Orders

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