|
HCAL 498/2021
[2021] HKCFI 2551
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 498 of 2021
BETWEEN
|
Mohammed Moinuddin |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Respondent |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
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:
THE APPLICATION
1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to file the application for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 30 March 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing her application for a subsequent claim of HCAL 989 of 2017 under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (the “Ordinance”).
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.
The procedural history
3. The applicant is an illegal immigrant from India. He raised non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on 8 August 2014 on the grounds of Torture risk under the Ordinance; the BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance; Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention and subsequently BOR 2 risk, Right of Life risk under Article 2 of the Bills of Right Ordinance.
4. His claim was rejected by the Director by a Notice of Decision dated 9 September 2016 and Notice of Further Decision dated 7 August 2017.
5. He appealed to the Torture Claim Board (the “Board”). By its Decision dated 12 October 2017 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board rejected his appeal.
6. He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and the application was rejected by the Court by its Order dated 10 August 2018 (the “Court’s Order”).
7. He appealed against the Court’s Order to the Court of Appeal and his application was refused on 18 January 2019.
8. His notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 April 2019.
9. His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 21 April 2020.
10. He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection under the unified screening mechanism by letters dated 18 May 2020 and 22 September 2020.
11. By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.
The subsequent claim application
12. The factual basis of his original claim is that if he is refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor (“MR”) and his subordinates who were powerful in India.
13. The Director found that the level of risk of being harmed or killed by his creditor was assessed to the low; that there was no evidence that the state was involved and state protection would be available to him and internal relocation was an option open to him.
14. The Board affirmed the Director’s Decision.
15. 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 or withdrawn and such change of circumstances, when taken together with the material previously submitted, would give the subsequent claim a realist prospect of success.
16. The applicant relies upon the fact that his ex-wife had made false allegations of ill-treating by him.
17. The immigration officer has considered his circumstances and noted that the allegation should cover the time he was in India and it was not raised by him in the original claim. Further, she disagrees that those are the changed circumstances since his original claim was finally determined. This means he is principally re-litigating his original claim. She further said that even if he were wanted by the police in India, there was no evidence to show that he would not have a fair trial. In any event, such circumstances, when taken together with his original claim, would not give a realistic prospect of success in his subsequent claim.
The application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision
18. The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of his application. He encloses the Director’s Decision without specifying any ground in support of his application.
19. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
20. The Director is entitled to reach his conclusion after considering his evidence as he did in this case. The applicant has raised no valid challenge to the Director’s Decision or finding of the fact.
21. It is quite clear that the applicant is re-litigating his original claim in his subsequent claim application. I agree to the immigration officer’s view.
22. The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s Decision. The Director’s finding of the facts is not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.
23. Since there is no realistic prospect of success in his subsequent claim, I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.
The RPO
24. The Director’s findings show that the applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of his claim for a subsequent claim, which will amount to an abuse of the process. 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 72.
25. 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 Director 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.
26. In my view, the fact that the applicant is entitled to apply for subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Ordinance and is irrelevant so far as his intention is clearly an abuse of the process. The application should be viewed together with the procedural history of the case.
27. 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 applicant has been explained the proposed restricted proceeding order before this hearing.
28. Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against him, the applicant said he just needed more time and he would go back to his own country.
29. Having considered the applicant’s explanation, I am 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, 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 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 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.
(11) A copy of this Order shall be sent to the Registrar of the High Court.
DISPOSITION
30. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
31. RPO in terms of paragraph 29 be made against the applicant.
Dated the 31st day of August 2021
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms) |
| |
for Registrar, High Court |
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must: |
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)). |
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 31 August 2021
Mohammed Moinuddin
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 31 August 2021
Director of Immigration
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
L/M (21049) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (formerly RBCZ/9002790/17, RCBZ/2546/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|