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

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

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO and his proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed; the Director applied lawful procedure and proper assessment; an RPO was justified because the Applicant persisted in re-litigating a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process, and restrictions with specified procedural safeguards were ordered for five years.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4072
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Sabir; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1586/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Subsequent Torture Claim (s37 ZO Immigration Ordinance)
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Torture Risk Restricted Proceedings Order +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Sabir

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness was breached by alleged lack of screening or legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO and his proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable or likely to succeed; the Director applied lawful procedure and proper assessment; an RPO was justified because the Applicant persisted in re-litigating a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abuse of process, and restrictions with specified procedural safeguards were ordered for five years.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
  • Restricted Proceedings Order: Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon any non-refoulement claim without leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.