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

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

The Director's refusal was lawful because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and the claimed grounds were essentially the same as previously and finally determined; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 981
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Sayeed; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
HCAL42/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Determined; Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Litigation, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm)
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Sayeed

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Determined; Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made under s27 of the High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's refusal was lawful because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and the claimed grounds were essentially the same as previously and finally determined; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success for judicial review; repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim constituted an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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