NOUMAN MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NOUMAN MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; the claimed material (PML(N) in power) did not establish a realistic prospect of success given prior findings and absence of evidence of targeted risk; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness; the Applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate resolved claims constituted abuse of process and justified a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order under s27/s27A and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 500
Parties
Applicant: Nouman Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2023
Case Number
HCAL936/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application; RPO Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Abuse of Process, Restricted Proceedings Order, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Abuse of Process Restricted Proceedings Order +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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nouman Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Decision on Leave Application; RPO Made

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 Director’s decision was Wednesbury-unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances to justify a subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; the claimed material (PML(N) in power) did not establish a realistic prospect of success given prior findings and absence of evidence of targeted risk; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness; the Applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate resolved claims constituted abuse of process and justified a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order under s27/s27A and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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