MONA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MONA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to present sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with previous material, would give the new claim a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO Cap 115; further, the applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 Cap 4 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3080
Parties
Applicant: Mona; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1249/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Allow Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Vexatious Proceedings, Restricted Proceedings Order, Unified Screening Mechanism, Abuse of Process
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Vexatious Proceedings +3 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mona

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal to Allow Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or procedurally in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise jurisdiction to impose a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 High Court Ordinance or inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to present sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with previous material, would give the new claim a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO Cap 115; further, the applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 Cap 4 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave 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 Judge as designated by the Chief Judge