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

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

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, combined with prior material, would give the subsequent non‑refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; because the applicant was attempting to relitigate settled facts and intended to abuse the process, a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3348
Parties
Applicant: Shashank; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 November 2021
Case Number
HCAL1437/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and RPO Made
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Abuse of Process, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under S37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Abuse of Process +1 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shashank

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused and RPO Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to justify a subsequent non-refoulement claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration's decision was unlawful, Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is justified to prevent abuse of process by repeated litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused leave because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, combined with prior material, would give the subsequent non‑refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; because the applicant was attempting to relitigate settled facts and intended to abuse the process, a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings relating to any non‑refoulement claim in the Court of First Instance without leave of the Court
  • Leave applications to be made to Deputy Judge K. W. Lung or designated judge as specified