MUHAMMAD NASIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MUHAMMAD NASIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicant relied on the same facts already considered and rejected in earlier proceedings; there was no significant change in circumstances and no realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and an RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 1760
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Nasir; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 July 2024
Case Number
HCAL758/2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused and dismissed; a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave Threshold
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +1 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Nasir

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) / Decision on Leave Application (leave Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's repeated reliance on previously rejected facts amounts to abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified to prevent further abuse

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant relied on the same facts already considered and rejected in earlier proceedings; there was no significant change in circumstances and no realistic prospect of success under s37ZO, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and an RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused and dismissed; a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is made against the applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any fresh proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • All leave applications under this order must be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or, in his absence, the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other designated Judge.