SEIKH SAMIRUDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SEIKH SAMIRUDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to supply sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO such that the subsequent claim would have a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the Applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, amounting to an abuse of process.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 168
Parties
Applicant: Seikh Samiruddin; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2022
Case Number
HCAL1590/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) made against the Applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Unified Screening Mechanism, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims Unified Screening Mechanism +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seikh Samiruddin

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant established a "significant change of circumstances" under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to permit a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director erred in law or acted unfairly in refusing permission to make a subsequent claim
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate determined non-refoulement claims justify a Restricted Proceedings Order

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to supply sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO such that the subsequent claim would have a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the Applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, amounting to an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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