MD KADER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MD KADER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the applicant's judicial review application was out of time and had no prospect of success; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant had habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate a conclusively determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3491
Parties
Applicant: Md Kader; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1410/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; RPO Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Delay and Extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Kader

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; RPO Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's judicial review application was filed promptly or time should be extended
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made to prevent vexatious re-litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the applicant's judicial review application was out of time and had no prospect of success; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant had habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate a conclusively determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order: applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without prior leave of this Court or a designated Judge