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

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

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; procedural fairness was observed by inviting further materials and advising availability of legal assistance, no statutory right to appeal the refusal exists, and the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6472
Parties
Applicant: Mudassar; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2195/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application and RPO
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claim, Subsequent Claim Procedure, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Torture Claim Subsequent Claim Procedure Restricted Proceedings Order +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mudassar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Decision on Leave Application and RPO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness required a fresh screening interview for the subsequent claim request
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant was entitled to legal representation for the request to make a subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; procedural fairness was observed by inviting further materials and advising availability of legal assistance, no statutory right to appeal the refusal exists, and the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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