MOHAMMED JAWED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMED JAWED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Extension of time was refused because the Applicant was more than ten weeks late, gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the intended judicial review had no reasonably arguable grounds; the Director correctly applied s37ZO in refusing permission for a subsequent claim as there was no sufficient evidence of significant change or realistic prospect of success; because the Applicant persistently sought to relitigate a finally determined claim the court properly imposed a five-year RPO to prevent further abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 3260
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Jawed; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 November 2022
Case Number
HCAL519/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and RPO Made
Outcome
Extension of time refused; application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Extension of Time for Judicial Review (order 53 R4), Abuse of Process, Country of Origin Information and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Extension of Time for Judicial Review (order 53 R4) +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Jawed

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application and RPO Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for the leave application
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO
  3. 3 Whether the intended judicial review had any reasonably arguable ground

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the Applicant was more than ten weeks late, gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the intended judicial review had no reasonably arguable grounds; the Director correctly applied s37ZO in refusing permission for a subsequent claim as there was no sufficient evidence of significant change or realistic prospect of success; because the Applicant persistently sought to relitigate a finally determined claim the court properly imposed a five-year RPO to prevent further abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Extension of time for the leave application refused
  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed