SK ASKAR ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

SK ASKAR ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The application to pursue the appeal and to set aside the RPO was dismissed because the applicant's additional material did not show a significant change that would give a subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy Judge's Decision, and the applicant's conduct was vexatious; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to permit the appeal or set aside the RPO.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2936
Parties
Applicant: SK ASKAR ALI; Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Case Number
HCAL913/2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Leave to Pursue Appeal and Application to Set Aside Restrictive Proceedings Order (rpo)
Outcome
Application dismissed; Restrictive Proceedings Order remains in force; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Proceedings Order, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim, Country of Origin Information, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, COVID 19 Country Conditions
Source Language
EN
Immigration Constitutional and Administrative Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Human Rights Restrictive Proceedings Order Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Subsequent Non Refoulement Claim +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SK ASKAR ALI

Applicant

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement Claim) / Application for Leave to Pursue Appeal and Application to Set Aside Restrictive Proceedings Order (rpo)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission to pursue an appeal notwithstanding an existing RPO
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's material demonstrated a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success for a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO
  3. 3 Whether the RPO should be set aside and whether the Deputy Judge's Decision was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The application to pursue the appeal and to set aside the RPO was dismissed because the applicant's additional material did not show a significant change that would give a subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy Judge's Decision, and the applicant's conduct was vexatious; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to permit the appeal or set aside the RPO.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Restrictive Proceedings Order remains in force; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Dismissal of the applicant's application for leave to pursue the appeal and to set aside the RPO
  • The existing Restrictive Proceedings Order remains in force