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

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

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that, with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and, because the applicant's conduct showed a clear intention to re-litigate settled matters to remain in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of the court process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2824
Parties
Applicant: Raj Narayan; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2021
Case Number
HCAL1228/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal of Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 Zo, Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 / Leave Application Decided (refused); Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Non Refoulement, Torture Risk / Article 3 BOR, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Human Rights Judicial Review Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Non Refoulement Torture Risk / Article 3 BOR Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Narayan

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Apply for Judicial Review of Refusal of Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 Zo, Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 / Leave Application Decided (refused); Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing the applicant's subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent claim showed a significant change in circumstances such that, taken with previous material, it had a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order should be made to prevent abuse of process by repeated litigation to remain in Hong Kong

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances that, with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and, because the applicant's conduct showed a clear intention to re-litigate settled matters to remain in Hong Kong, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of the court process.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.

Orders

  • (1) The Applicant be prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings by whatever originating process, or continuing any existing legal proceedings, relating to any non-refoulement claim of the Applicant in the High Court, without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • (2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as may be designated by the Chief Judge of the High Court to hear cases in the Constitutional and Administrative Law List.