LY RAHAMANE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LY RAHAMANE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director properly applied s37ZO by finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success for a subsequent non-refoulement claim; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness in that decision, and the applicant’s persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined claims constituted an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 807
Parties
Applicant: Ly Rahamane; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL2557/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claim, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claim Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ly Rahamane

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and Imposition of Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances sufficient to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or procedurally in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate amount to an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court’s inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The Director properly applied s37ZO by finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success for a subsequent non-refoulement claim; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness in that decision, and the applicant’s persistent attempts to relitigate finally determined claims constituted an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant is prohibited from commencing fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All applications for leave under this Order shall be made to 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