SHAH JAMAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SHAH JAMAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the Applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or of a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success in the proposed judicial review; because the Applicant persistently attempted to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, the court was justified under s27 and its inherent jurisdiction to make a RPO prohibiting fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave and prescribing procedural safeguards.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3387
Parties
Applicant: Naveed Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1335/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Naveed Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether earlier adverse credibility and factual findings could be relied on under s37ZO(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the Applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or of a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success in the proposed judicial review; because the Applicant persistently attempted to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, the court was justified under s27 and its inherent jurisdiction to make a RPO prohibiting fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave and prescribing procedural safeguards.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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