MIAH KABIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MIAH KABIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant relied on the same or similar facts as in his finally determined previous claim and failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness found in the Director's decision, and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2536
Parties
Applicant: Miah Kabir; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2022
Case Number
HCAL576/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Hearing on Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Standards (wednesbury, Anxious Scrutiny)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Leave to Apply for Judicial Review 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miah Kabir

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application and Hearing on Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under s.37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there has been a significant change of circumstances giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified to prevent abuse of process by repeated litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant relied on the same or similar facts as in his finally determined previous claim and failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness found in the Director's decision, and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court, or any appeal, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • Leave applications must be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or designated judge as specified.