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

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

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and therefore failed to show that a subsequent claim would have a realistic prospect of success; no error of law...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1833
Parties
Applicant: Khan Muhammad Suleman; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL745/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim, Section 37 ZO, Unified Screening Mechanism, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Human Rights Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Section 37 ZO Unified Screening Mechanism Internal Relocation +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khan Muhammad Suleman

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent torture/non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or acted unfairly in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether findings on availability of state protection and internal relocation negate the asserted risk

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and therefore failed to show that a subsequent claim would have a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated, so leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.