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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the Director lawfully applied s37ZO, found no sufficient evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; because the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1353
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Sharif; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2023
Case Number
HCAL461/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 ZO Immigration Ordinance), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Proceedings, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 ZO Immigration Ordinance) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Vexatious Proceedings +1 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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Sharif

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant showed a significant change of circumstances since his previous claim that, together with prior material, gives a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether procedural fairness or error of law occurred in the Director's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the Director lawfully applied s37ZO, found no sufficient evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; because the applicant repeatedly sought to re-litigate matters finally determined, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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