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

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

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused; given persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined protection claims the court made an RPO under s27 and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3764
Parties
Applicant: Md Tanvir; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL1527/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Claims Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Tanvir

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise statutory or inherent jurisdiction to make a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance to prevent vexatious re-litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused; given persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined protection claims the court made an RPO under s27 and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

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 leave of the Court.