SHIPON MD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

SHIPON MD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was supported by reasons and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that together with prior materials would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and because the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3562
Parties
Applicant: Shipon Md; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 December 2021
Case Number
HCAL1531/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Burden of Proof
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee and Asylum Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shipon Md

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Decision on Leave; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration erred in refusing the applicant's subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether there was a significant change of circumstances sufficient to give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's decision refusing the subsequent claim was supported by reasons and was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that together with prior materials would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and because the subsequent claim amounted to re-litigation and abuse of process the Court lawfully refused leave and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent further abusive proceedings.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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