MOHAMMAD FIROJ AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MOHAMMAD FIROJ AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, and an RPO was warranted to prevent abuse of process given repeated re-litigation of substantially the same facts.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 2033
Parties
1st Applicant: Mohammad Firoj; 2nd Applicant: Nessa Mehrun; 3rd Applicant: Firoj Falak; 4th Applicant: Firoj Bushra; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 July 2022
Case Number
HCAL1754/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Application for Leave and Order for Restricted Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicants' application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture and Persecution Claims
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +2 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Firoj

1st Applicant

Nessa Mehrun

2nd Applicant

Firoj Falak

3rd Applicant

Firoj Bushra

4th Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/subsequent Claim) / Decision on Application for Leave and Order for Restricted Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO to justify a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director's refusal of the subsequent claim was unlawful, Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether absence of legal representation for minors created a ground to grant leave

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair, and an RPO was warranted to prevent abuse of process given repeated re-litigation of substantially the same facts.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; applicants' application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against applicants

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any fresh High Court proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • Leave applications must be made to Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung or designated judge as directed by the Chief Judge