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

RIZWAN 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 and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision-making; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined issues, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1149
Parties
Applicant: Rizwan Muhammad; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 May 2023
Case Number
HCAL442/2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review — Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rizwan Muhammad

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review — Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant showed a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director or the Board committed errors of law or procedural unfairness in earlier determinations

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 and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision-making; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined issues, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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