MOHAMMAD ESHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD ESHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully and properly applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director correctly found availability of state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation; given no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success, leave was refused. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate matters already finally determined, amounting to abuse of process, and the court exercised s27 Cap 4 and its inherent jurisdiction to restrain...

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 253
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Eshan; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL1683/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order Issued
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Subsequent Claims (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Internal Relocation, State Protection
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Torture Claims Subsequent Claims (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Eshan

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Application for Leave Refused; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under section 37ZO Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made under s27 High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully and properly applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director correctly found availability of state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation; given no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success, leave was refused. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate matters already finally determined, amounting to abuse of process, and the court exercised s27 Cap 4 and its inherent jurisdiction to restrain...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Restricted Proceedings Order prohibiting the Applicant from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the Court of First Instance relating to any non-refoulement claim without prior leave of this Court or designated judge