MILAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Parties

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review – Leave to Apply / Decision on Leave Application and Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non‑refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 of the High Court Ordinance or the Court's inherent jurisdiction is justified to prevent vexatious relitigation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Director properly applied section 37ZO: the applicant failed to provide written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or show that any change, combined with previously submitted material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; further, the applicant failed to provide medical evidence of epilepsy sufficient to engage applicable non‑refoulement or human rights risks. An RPO was justified because the applicant habitually and persistently sought to re‑litigate a finally determined claim, amounting to abuse of process, and the RPO terms were necessary and proportionate to prevent further vexatious proceedings.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

• Leave to apply for judicial review refused and the applicant's leave application dismissed
• The applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance