SHARIFUL ISLAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SHARIFUL ISLAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and the subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2740
Parties
Applicant: Shariful Islam; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL1140/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision (leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made)
Outcome
Application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shariful Islam

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision (leave Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused the applicant's subsequent claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there is a significant change of circumstances giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) should be made to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO; the Director's factual findings were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair and the subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
  • Applicant is prohibited from commencing any fresh proceedings or continuing existing proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the High Court without leave of the Court of First Instance.