MOHAMMED FIROZ KHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 812/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 812 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;     or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.      Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.      A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the Applicant.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 26 May 2021 refusing to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection after his earlier claim had been rejected by both the Director and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) on all applicable grounds.   

2.  The Applicant is a 47-year-old national of India who arrived in Hong Kong on 2 June 2007 with permission to remain as a visitor up to 16 June 2007 when he did not depart and instead overstayed until his arrest by police on 13 February 2008. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to India he would be harmed or killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts.

Previous Non-Refoulement Claim       

3.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 September 2014 the Director rejected the Applicant’s claim on all then applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

4.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his creditor and his followers upon his return to India as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that it was a private monetary dispute between them without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in India with a large population of 1.2 billion people spread across a vast territory of more than 3.2 million square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other part of India away from his home district in large cities such as Delhi where it would be difficult if not impossible for his creditor to locate him.

5.  The Applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision was dismissed by the Board on 25 June 2015 upon hearing him in evidence and submissions and upon finding no merits in his claim or his appeal, and that it also confirmed the Director’s decision.

6.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was also refused by Li J on 23 September 2016 upon finding none of the proposed grounds for his intended challenge reasonably arguable, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision, and that there was no prospect of success in his intended application (HCAL 123/2015).

7.  On 28 December 2016 the Director on his own initiative invited the Applicant to submit additional facts which may be relevant to his non-refoulement claim based on any other absolute or non-derogable rights under HKBOR being including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”) being violated upon his return to India, and upon considering those additional facts submitted by the Applicant, the Director by a Notice of Further Decision dated 13 January 2017 rejected his BOR 2 Claim.

8.  The Applicant again lodged an appeal to the Board against the Director’s Further Decision, and on 6 November 2017 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s Further Decision upon finding that the Applicant’s claim even on his own case did not engage the BOR 2 ground.

9.  On 13 November 2017 the Applicant filed another Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of this second decision of the Board based on the same grounds as before in his previous application rejected by Li J, which was also refused by this court on 21 September 2018 upon finding no additional facts relevant to his BOR 2 Claim had been submitted by the Applicant, that that was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Director or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no prospect of success in his intended application (HCAL 877/2017 [2018] HKCFI 2104).   

10.  The Applicant’s subsequent appeal against the court’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 February 2019 (CACV 473/2018 [2019] HKCA 236).

11.  The Applicant’s notice of motion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 30 May 2019 ([2019] HKCA 593), and then by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal on 7 January 2021 under Rule 7 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules, Cap 484A.

12.  However, less than one month later on 4 February 2021 the Applicant filed yet a third Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the previous decision of the Director in rejecting his non-refoulement claim, which was dismissed by this court on 8 June 2021 upon finding that it was an abuse of process for him to try to re-litigate his case without any viable grounds (HCAL 125/2021 [2021] HKCFI 1643).

Request to Make Subsequent Claim

13.  Meanwhile at about the same time of the filing of his third application for judicial review as noted above, on 16 February 2021 the Applicant in writing to the Immigration Department requested to make a subsequent claim on the basis that his creditor who has grown even more powerful in his home district is still looking for him over his unpaid debts and he therefore still fears of being killed if refouled to India.  

14.  There are however constraints on a claimant who has previously made a non-refoulement claim to make a subsequent claim, as stipulated by Section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance as follows:

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has previously made a torture claim must not subsequently make another torture claim.

(2) A person may make a subsequent claim if the person provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that –

(a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and

(b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

(3) In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an immigration officer or the Appeal Board in relation to a torture claim previously made by the person.

(4) If an immigration officer decides that a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision.

(5) If an immigration officer decides that a person may not make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision, and the notice must also include the reasons for the decision.”

15.  Accordingly on 10 March 2021 the Director required the Applicant to provide further information and evidence in writing in support of his request within 14 days, which he subsequently did on 22 March 2021 by way of a letter enclosing additional information in support of his request to make a subsequent claim.

16.  By a Notice of Decision dated 26 May 2021 the Director refused to allow the Applicant to make a subsequent claim upon finding that the basis thereof was essentially the same as that of his previous claim, and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since his previous claim was determined, or that those changes when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of his previous claim would give his subsequent claim any realistic prospect of success.

17.  On 2 June 2021 the Applicant filed yet another Form 86 in these proceedings for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form, and in his supporting affirmation filed on the same day he merely attached a copy of the decision without putting any viable ground for his intended challenge, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application when he admitted that he is ready to return to his home country after the coronavirus situation in India has subsided.

18.  In the premises and having considered the decision of the Director with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision or any failure to apply high standards of fairness in the consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s request for subsequent claim, and as I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I accordingly refuse his leave application.

Restricted Proceedings Order

19.  Given the facts that the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim has already been finally and conclusively determined in the previous proceedings as detailed above, ending with the order of the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal dated 7 January 2021, but that the Applicant is still repeatedly trying to re-litigate his case by making this subsequent claim based on essentially the same facts and basis as before, I shall next consider whether it would be appropriate to make a Restricted Proceedings Order (“RPO”) against him.

20.  Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4 provides as follows:

“Restriction of vexatious legal proceedings

(1) The Court of First Instance may, on the application of the Secretary for Justice or an affected person, make an order that –

(a) no legal proceedings shall without the leave of the Court of First Instance be instituted by the person against whom the order is made; and

(b) any legal proceedings instituted by that person in any court before the making of the order shall not be continued by him without the leave of the Court of First Instance.

(2) The Court of First Instance may not make an order under subsection (1) unless –

(a) it is satisfied that the person against whom the order is to be made has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings, whether in the High Court or in any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons; and

(b) it has heard the person against whom the order is to be made or given him an opportunity of being heard.

(3) An order made under subsection (1) –

(a) may be made on such terms and conditions as the Court of First Instance thinks just; and

(b) may provide that it is to cease to have effect at the end of a specified period, but shall otherwise remain in force indefinitely.

…”

21.  In Etik Iswanti v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2021] HKCFI 1589, Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) examined the relevant principles for making an order under Section 27 against a non-refoulement claimant to prevent him or her from commencing vexatious legal proceedings which sought to re-open a non-refoulement claim which had already been finally and conclusively determined in previous proceedings, and held that repeated actions evidencing a calculated attempt by a claimant to delay an inevitable judgment or its execution or a refusal to accept the unfavourable final result of a litigation or seeking to re-open matters already determined in a previous action may be regarded as vexatious legal proceedings which would justify a RPO being made under the section.  

22.  His Lordship in the subsequent case of Re Wahyuni v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991 (again sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance) went on to hold that apart from Section 27 of the High Court Ordinance, the court has an inherent jurisdiction which it can exercise on its own motion to make a RPO to prevent similar abuses of the court’s process by non-refoulement claimants, as the underlying purpose of the court’s jurisdiction to make a RPO is the prevention of abuse of process ([9] – [10]).

23.  In the present case, it is clear from the above that the Applicant’s conduct in seeking persistently to re-litigate his non-refoulement claim without viable grounds amounts to an abuse of process, and that unless a RPO is made against him, he will likely continue to do so and thereby wasting further precious time and resources of the Judiciary.

24.  Accordingly, I make the following order:

(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 High Court, without leave of the Court of First Instance;

(2)     All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to 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 List;

(3)     At least 7 days before filing any application for leave under paragraph (1), the Applicant do notify in writing each intended defendant or respondent of his intention to make such application, enclosing a copy of the draft document by which the fresh proceedings are intended to be commenced, and if any response is received by the Applicant from any such intended defendant or respondent, that the Applicant do file a copy of each such response together with his said application for leave;

(4)     Any intended defendant or respondent having notice of such intended proceedings be entitled but under no obligation to place before the court written representations regarding the same;

(5)     All applications made pursuant to this order and all ancillary matters be dealt with by the court on paper and without any oral hearing unless the designated Judge should otherwise direct;

(6)     If the Applicant should issue fresh proceedings falling or which may fall within the terms of paragraph (1) without first seeking the court’s leave, and if such fact should come to the notice of the Registrar of the High Court or any Master or Judge, such fresh proceedings be referred to the designated Judge for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed;

(7)     Notice of each decision by the designated Judge made pursuant to this order be given in writing to the Applicant and to each intended defendant or respondent named in the fresh proceedings;

(8)     Whether or not any fresh proceedings are brought to the notice of the designated Judge, if a defendant or respondent is served with such proceedings without the relevant documents being accompanied by either an order granting leave to commence such proceedings or a direction that leave to commence such proceedings is not required, such defendant or respondent be entitled to make no response to such service pending notification of the court’s decision in relation to those proceedings; and that time for acknowledging service or for otherwise responding to such proceedings be deemed extended accordingly;

(9)     No more than one leave application under paragraph (1) may be made by the Applicant within any period of 3 months;

(10)     This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order; and

(11)     A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.

Disposition 

25.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

26.  A RPO in terms of paragraph 24 be made against the Applicant. 

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1