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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his finally determined previous claim and failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO giving a realistic prospect of success; because the applicant was likely to abuse process, a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6378
Parties
Applicant: Md Wahid; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2350/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Judicial Review (leave Stage), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Torture/cidtp Risk, Risk to Life (hkbor Article 2), Refugee Convention Article 33
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Judicial Review (leave Stage) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Md Wahid

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim satisfied section 37ZO (significant change of circumstances)
  2. 2 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same grounds as his finally determined previous claim and failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO giving a realistic prospect of success; because the applicant was likely to abuse process, a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and proportionate to prevent further abusive litigation.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The applicant is prohibited from commencing fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or appeals without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All applications for leave under this Order must be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or the designated Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a Judge designated by the Chief Judge.