ROBBIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ROBBIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or to show that, when combined with prior material, a subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; the Director properly considered COI including...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2474
Parties
Applicant: Robbiah; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL1026/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim, Restricted Proceedings Order, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Section 27 High Court Ordinance, Abuse of Process, Screening Interview, Country of Origin Information (coi), COVID 19 Risk Assessment
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Restricted Proceedings Order +6 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robbiah

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Leave Application / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether procedural impropriety occurred by failing to hold a further screening interview or to make proper COI inquiries including COVID-19 risk
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) under s27 High Court Ordinance or the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO: the applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or to show that, when combined with prior material, a subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; the Director properly considered COI including COVID‑19 risks and did not commit procedural unfairness in declining a further screening interview; given repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim, a RPO under s27 HCO (and inherent jurisdiction) was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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