RAJ KUMAR KUMHAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RAJ KUMAR KUMHAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to satisfy the statutory s37ZO threshold of demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success when taken with prior material; given the history of final adverse determinations and persistent re-litigation, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2656
Parties
Applicant: Raj Kumar Kumhal; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL1081/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Vexatious Litigation, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture/non Refoulement Claims Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +3 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Kumar Kumhal

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made under s27 High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to satisfy the statutory s37ZO threshold of demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success when taken with prior material; given the history of final adverse determinations and persistent re-litigation, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 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 Applicant.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed.
  • The Applicant is prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of the Court of First Instance.