KHAN JUNAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

KHAN JUNAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused the applicant permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and there was no realistic prospect of success given prior unchallenged findings (including availability of internal relocation); accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3657
Parties
Applicant: Khan Junaid; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL1408/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave 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, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Torture Risk
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Junaid

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a "significant change of circumstances" under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director's refusal involved error of law or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review leave
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of process given prior final determinations

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the applicant permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and there was no realistic prospect of success given prior unchallenged findings (including availability of internal relocation); accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent 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 in the Court of First Instance relating to any non-refoulement claim without first obtaining this Court's leave
  • All leave applications must be made to this Court or the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge