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

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

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances or that new material together with prior material gave a realistic prospect of success. Given persistent attempts to re‑litigate matters finally determined, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1918
Parties
1st Applicant: Mohammad Babul; 2nd Applicant: Puji Lestari; 3rd Applicant: Mohammad Nikhila Zara Begum; 4th Applicant: Mohammad Rauf Muqsith; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 July 2023
Case Number
HCAL771/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicants.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim, Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Internal Relocation, Country of Origin Information
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Unified Screening Mechanism +5 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Babul

1st Applicant

Puji Lestari

2nd Applicant

Mohammad Nikhila Zara Begum

3rd Applicant

Mohammad Rauf Muqsith

4th Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave Application (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants satisfied s37ZO Immigration Ordinance threshold for making a subsequent non-refoulement claim (significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or committed procedural unfairness in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise s27 High Court Ordinance or inherent jurisdiction to make a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the applicants failed to show any significant change of circumstances or that new material together with prior material gave a realistic prospect of success. Given persistent attempts to re‑litigate matters finally determined, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review refused.
  • A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is made prohibiting the Applicants from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to or touching upon any non‑refoulement claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.