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

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

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair because the evidence did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and the applicant was re-litigating his original claim; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is required to prevent further abuse of the court process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2738
Parties
Applicant: Md Sirajul Islam; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL1120/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration Decision (subsequent Claim Under S37 Zo) / Leave Application / Decision and Consideration of Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Non Refoulement, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Refugee and Non Refoulement Law Civil Procedure Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Non Refoulement Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Sirajul Islam

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Director of Immigration Decision (subsequent Claim Under S37 Zo) / Leave Application / Decision and Consideration of Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is re-litigating the original claim and abusing process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair because the evidence did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and the applicant was re-litigating his original claim; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is required to prevent further abuse of the court process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicant

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 leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge