SHAIFUL AHMED KHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

SHAIFUL AHMED KHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The applicant relied on the same facts already rejected in his previous claim and provided no cogent evidence of a significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO; there was no realistic prospect of success in a judicial review and the court, to prevent abuse of process and repeated relitigation, validly made...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2561
Parties
Applicant: Shaiful Ahmed Khan; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2024
Case Number
HCAL1260/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Decision Refusing Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave for Judicial Review, Credibility Findings, Internal Relocation
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaiful Ahmed Khan

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Decision Refusing Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim Under Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review; Decision and Restricted Proceedings Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim under s37ZO for lack of significant change of circumstances and realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's repeated reliance on the same facts amounted to abuse of process warranting a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO)
  3. 3 Whether the court should intervene in the Director's fact-finding on credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant relied on the same facts already rejected in his previous claim and provided no cogent evidence of a significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO; there was no realistic prospect of success in a judicial review and the court, to prevent abuse of process and repeated relitigation, validly made a Restricted Proceedings Order restricting fresh non-refoulement proceedings for five years and requiring leave of the Court to commence or continue such proceedings.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • (1) The Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing any existing legal proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court and any appeal without leave of the Court of First Instance.
  • (2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or in his absence the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or such other Judge as designated by the Chief Judge.