NANNU MD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NANNU MD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and correctly found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; allowing unrestricted further proceedings would be an abuse of process, therefore leave is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2886
Parties
Applicant: Nannu Md; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1214/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim Under Section 37 Zo, Immigration Ordinance Cap.115) / High Court (court of First Instance) – Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Judicial Review Non‑refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order +4 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nannu Md

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (subsequent Non‑refoulement Claim Under Section 37 Zo, Immigration Ordinance Cap.115) / High Court (court of First Instance) – Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director properly applied section 37ZO in refusing the subsequent claim
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was unlawful, irrational (Wednesbury) or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and correctly found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; allowing unrestricted further proceedings would be an abuse of process, therefore leave is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

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