RASHED A B M BORHANUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

RASHED A B M BORHANUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and reasonably concluded the applicant did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision and no prospect of success in judicial review, and because the applicant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3315
Parties
Applicant: Rashed A B M Borhanur; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1334/2021
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, Unified Screening Mechanism, Subsequent Claim, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Subsequent Claim +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashed A B M Borhanur

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 Director's decision contained an error of law or procedural unfairness
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified to prevent abuse of process by repeated re-litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and reasonably concluded the applicant did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision and no prospect of success in judicial review, and because the applicant repeatedly sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims the Court properly made a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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