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

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

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the leave application was almost ten months out of time with no adequate explanation and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1540
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Wakil; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2023
Case Number
HCAL575/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim / Leave Stage: Application for Leave Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Imposed
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (section 27 Hco), Extension of Time for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Non‑refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (section 27 Hco) +3 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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Wakil

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Permit Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim / Leave Stage: Application for Leave Dismissed; Extension of Time Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Imposed

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 to extend time for the leave application under Order 53 r4(1)
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified to prevent vexatious re‑litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the leave application was almost ten months out of time with no adequate explanation and no arguable merits, so extension of time was refused; given the applicant's repeated attempts to re‑litigate finally determined non‑refoulement claims, a RPO under Section 27 HCO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant

Orders

  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision dated 23 March 2022 refused
  • The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review dismissed