NAHID MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NAHID MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Applicant did not supply sufficient written evidence to satisfy s37ZO that there had been a significant change of circumstances or that any change, together with prior material, gave a realistic prospect of success; prior determinations were final; no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 542
Parties
Applicant: Nahid Mohammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 April 2023
Case Number
HCAL1024/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (administrative/immigration) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim (section 37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order / Vexatious Litigation (section 27 Hco), Judicial Review Leave Standard, Abuse of Process, Country of Origin Information and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee/non‑refoulement Law Civil Procedure Subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim (section 37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order / Vexatious Litigation (section 27 Hco) Judicial Review Leave Standard +2 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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nahid Mohammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non‑refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director’s decision involved error of law or procedural unfairness and thus was reasonably arguable for leave
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent habitual vexatious relitigation

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant did not supply sufficient written evidence to satisfy s37ZO that there had been a significant change of circumstances or that any change, together with prior material, gave a realistic prospect of success; prior determinations were final; no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness was identified on rigorous review; leave to apply for judicial review was therefore refused. Given repeated attempts to re‑litigate finally determined non‑refoulement claims and the absence of reasonable grounds, an RPO under ss27/27A High Court Ordinance and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent further abuse; the court specified conditions and limited the order to five years.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; 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 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