MD HASNAIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

MD HASNAIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements and his claim was plainly not reasonably arguable; the Director was entitled under s37ZO to refuse permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant did not show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and prior adverse credibility findings could be relied on; given the applicant's pattern of repetitious, groundless litigation the Court properly exercised its s27 discretion to restrict further non-refoulement litigation for a proportionate period with leave and to award costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1610
Parties
Applicant/defendant (acting in Person, Absent): MD Hasnain; Putative Respondent/plaintiff: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 June 2021
Case Number
HCAL409/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) and Section 27 Application / Leave Application and Section 27 Hearing; Decision Delivered 1 June 2021 With Reasons 9 June 2021
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Director's Section 27 application allowed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Vexatious Litigant Order (section 27), Judicial Review, Leave to Institute Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Vexatious Litigant Order (section 27) Judicial Review +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MD Hasnain

Applicant/defendant (acting in Person, Absent)

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (refusal to Permit Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim) and Section 27 Application / Leave Application and Section 27 Hearing; Decision Delivered 1 June 2021 With Reasons 9 June 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant produced sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether prior findings of credibility and fact could be relied on under s37ZO(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements and his claim was plainly not reasonably arguable; the Director was entitled under s37ZO to refuse permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant did not show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and prior adverse credibility findings could be relied on; given the applicant's pattern of repetitious, groundless litigation the Court properly exercised its s27 discretion to restrict further non-refoulement litigation for a proportionate period with leave and to award costs.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Director's Section 27 application allowed.

Orders

  • No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant shall be instituted by him without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • No legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant previously instituted by him shall be continued by him without leave of the Court of First Instance.