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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same facts already finally determined, failed to show any significant change in circumstances under s37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success, and the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make an RPO to prevent abuse of process where the applicant is likely to re-litigate solely to remain in Hong Kong.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2263
Parties
Applicant: Md Tarik; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 September 2024
Case Number
HCAL1032/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement (torture/cidtp/article 33 Refugee Convention), HKBOR Articles 2 and 3
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Law Abuse of Process Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Tarik

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director complied with public law requirements in refusing the subsequent claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change in circumstances since the previous claim to give a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is abusing the court process by re-litigating identical matters and whether an RPO is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same facts already finally determined, failed to show any significant change in circumstances under s37ZO to give a realistic prospect of success, and the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make an RPO to prevent abuse of process where the applicant is likely to re-litigate solely to remain in Hong Kong.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing fresh proceedings or continuing existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All leave applications under this order to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or a designated Judge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.