FAROOQ MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 2146/2024

[2025] HKCFI 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2146 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 29 October 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his claim on the applicable risks[1], which had been determined in his previous application under HCAL 2149 of 2018 (“the previous application”).

2.  The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against him since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.

3.  The applicant appeared before the Court on 6 November 2024 and admitted that he had made judicial review in respect of the Board’s Decision in the previous claim and this is the second application on the same facts and grounds.

The procedural history

4.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 17 December 2015. On 13 January 2016, he surrendered to the Immigration Department. On 20 July 2016, he raised a non-refoulement claim but later requested it to be withdrawn. On 10 January 2017, he requested to reopen his non-refoulement claim. His request was acceded to and his non-refoulement claim was assessed on all applicable grounds. The applicant’s claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor’s brother. He also feared that he was wanted by the police because of his creditor’s death.

5.  The Director dismissed his claim for the reason that it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board found that his evidence was not credible and dismissed his appeal.

6.  His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance on 23 January 2020. He applied for extension of time to appeal to Court of Appeal. The Court of the First Instance refused his application. He re- apply for extension of time and his application was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance.

7.  His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 19 October 2022. His Notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed the Court of Appeal on 18 January 2023.

8.  His application to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 11 June 2023.

9.  By letter dated 28 June 2024, the applicant applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.

The subsequent claim application

10.  Under section 37ZO of the Ordinance, he has to satisfy the immigration officer that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

11.  In support of his subsequent claim, the applicant submitted to the immigration officer some supplementary information including his statement and support documents such as medical certificates, IOU, a letter from the Fire Department.

12.  In gist, his fear to return to Pakistan arises on his previous claim and the additional material, which shows that his wife had incurred debt and was unable to repay the loan. The creditor held him liable to settle his wife’s debt. The creditor and his subordinates had tortured his son and family member, causing injuries to them, and set fire on his family’s premises.

13.  Having considered the evidence and the additional materials, the immigration officer, for discrepancies or inconsistence in his evidence, disbelieved his evidence. See para. 13-20 of the Director’s Decision. The immigration officer has also found that state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable if he returns to Pakistan. For those reasons, the immigration officer refused his application for subsequent claim.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision

14.  The applicant filed Form 86 on 15 November 2024 for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

15.  The applicant has raised the grounds below against the Director’s Decision:

(1) his claim for the subsequent is fresh claim and different from his pervious claim;

(2) procedural impropriety: failure to properly apply para 2 of the UN committee against Torture General Comment No,2; failing to conduct sufficient inquiry into the relevant country of origin information (“COI”) in relation to his political view and his enemies will harm him; failing to conduct screening interview; failing to consider his evidence and his potential danger caused by his enemies if he returns to Pakistan; and

(3) error/misdirection in law: failing to consider his new fact in support of his subsequent claim; and failing to consider his supporting documents.

Discussion

16.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Director complied with the public law requirements in coming to his Decision. The Court will not usurp his fact-finding power. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 §14 (1).

17.  The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant admitted that he relied on the same reasons of his previous claim.

18.  The grounds that he has raised in paragraph 15 will not assist him as he had admitted that he relied on the same reasons of his previous claim. In fact, most of those allegations are his bare or general assertions without any evidence in support. The Court of Appeal has held that they are not valid to challenge the Director’s Decision.[2] The immigration officer has separately considered his additional reasons in support of his subsequent claim. However, he rejected the applicant’s evidence for the reasons that he had given. He has given no weight to the additional materials [19]. The immigration officer does not have to conduct a screening interview with the applicant for the subsequent claim application as this is not provided for in the Ordinance. Of course, the immigration has the discretion to interview the applicant if he considers necessary. But he did not consider it was necessary to do so for his application.

19.  The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic chance of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

20.  I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

The RPO

21.  Because of the applicant’s attempt to abuse the process, the Court has to protect its process to be abused again. The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a RPO and the extended order against him. See paragraphs 7 & 8 of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal in Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1.

22.  RPO is appropriate for the present case. See The Secretary for Justice v Yuen Oi Yee Lisa, alias Lisa Yuen, Lisa Lee and another [2006] 1 HKLRD 679, Re Wahyuni v Direcctor of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 1991, by Hon. Chow JA (sitting as an additional judge of the Court of First Instance), 6 July 2021, § 9 and Re Uddin Borhan v Director of Immigration [2021] HKCFI 2129, § 25.

23.  For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why RPO should not be made against him. The RPO was explained to the applicant before the hearing. When asked whether he had anything to say about the proposed RPO, he said he had nothing to say.

24.  I am therefore satisfied that, if not restrained, it is likely that the applicant would proceed with this application and other proceedings for the sole purpose of remaining in Hong Kong only. I shall therefore make the RPO in terms below:

(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 and any appeal, including this Order, without leave of the Court of First Instance.

(2) All applications for leave under paragraph (1) shall be made to the Deputy High Court 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 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 her 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 the 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 Court 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 Court for a decision as to whether they should be permitted to continue or should be dismissed.

(7) Notice of each decision by this Court or 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 Court, 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) No appeal shall lie from a decision of the Judge granting or refusing leave within this Order unless leave to appeal has been granted by the Court.

(11) This order shall cease to have effect at the end of 5 years from the date of this order.

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

DISPOSITION

25.  The applicant’s application is dismissed.

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