Alam Mohammad Noore v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 483/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 483 of 2021

BETWEEN

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only; or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court;

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 apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 March 2021 (the “Director’s Decision”) refusing his application for a subsequent claim of HCAL 726 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.

3.At the hearing on 14 July, 2021, the applicant submitted that he had just applied for legal aid.  The matter was adjourned for 42 days pursuant to section 15 and regulation 7A of the Legal Aid Ordinance, Cap. 91.  At the resumed hearing on 18 August 2021, the Legal Aid Department has not finished processing his application.  The Court took the view that the matter should not be further delayed.  The matter proceeded.

The procedural history

4.The applicant is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh.  He had raised non-refoulement claim (“original claim”) with the Immigration Department on 23 December 2013 on the grounds of Torture risk under the Ordinance, BOR 2 risk, Right to Life risk under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, the BOR 3 risk under Article 3 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Persecution risk under the Refugee Convention. 

5.His original claim was rejected by the Director by a Notice of Decision dated 1 September 2016 and Notice of Further Decision dated 16 June 2017.

6.He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  By its Decision dated 19 September 2017, the Board rejected his appeal.

7.He applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and the application was rejected by the Court by its Order dated 9 August 2018.

8.He appealed against the Court’s Order to the Court of Appeal and his application was refused on 20 December 2018.

9.His notice of motion to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 1 April 2019.

10.His application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Final Appeal on 4 August 2020.

11.He applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection under the unified screening mechanism by letter dated 21 August 2020.

12.By the Director’s Decision, the Director refused his application.

The subsequent claim application

13.The factual basis of his original claim is that if he is refouled to Bangladesh, he would be harmed or killed by members of Awami League Party (“AL”).  The Director found that there was no substantial ground for believing that he would be subjected to the risk of being harmed or killed if he returned to Bangladesh; that state protection would be available to him and that internal relocation was an option open to him.

14.The Board affirmed the Direction’s Decisions and found that his evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.  He was therefore unable to discharge the burden of establishing the facts of his case.

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 realistic prospect of success.

16.The applicant relies upon the following new circumstances as he was told by his family and his friend in support of his application:

a.     the AL members are still looking for him; and

b.     the AL members made a false claim against him and accused his family of being closely affiliated with militants of the United States;

17.The immigration officer has considered his circumstances and is of the view that those circumstances were similar to his original claim against his enemy in Bangladesh and they had been dealt with by the Director and the Board previously.  The immigration officer does not consider that those are the changed circumstances in support of his subsequent claim.

18.As to the Director’s findings, the applicant has no comments except that he said he simply wanted to stay here for some more time.

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

19.The applicant has filed an affirmation in support of his application.  In his affirmation, he did not state any specific grounds in support of his application.  He appeared before me and said that he had nothing to say about the Director’s Decision.

20.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

21.It is obvious that the Director was entitled to form his views on the evidence before him.  The applicant has not raised any challenge on this issue.

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 reasonable prospect of success in his subsequent claim, I dismiss his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

The Restricted Proceedings Order

24.In accordance with Practice Direction 11.3, RPO should be made under the following circumstances:

“8. In accordance with Ng Yat Chi, an RPO should only be made if the person to be subjected to the order has abused, and is likely to continue abusing, the Court's process by seeking persistently to re-litigate in fresh proceedings, without viable legal grounds, matters which have already been determined by the Court, in circumstances where an RPO would be a proportionate response.”

25.As shown by the procedural history above, it is plain that the applicant refused to accept the unfavourable decisions made by the Director, the Board and the courts.

26.The Director’s findings show that the applicant is attempting to re-litigate the facts in support of his claim for a subsequent claim, categorically fitting the description of

“the vexatious litigants typically acts in person and characteristically refuses to accept the unfavourable result of the litigation, obstinately trying to re-open the matter without any viable legal basis.”^[1]

The Court has the inherent jurisdiction to prevent the applicant from abusing its process by making a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) and the extended order against him.^[2]

27.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.

28.In my view, the fact that the applicant is entitled to apply for subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Ordinance 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. The Court should take preventive measures against any abuse.

29.For this reason, the Court has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why a RPO should not be made against him.  The applicant has been explained the proposed restricted proceedings order by the court interpreter outside this court before hearing.

30.Upon being requested to show cause why the Court should not make the RPO against him, the applicant said that he only wanted to stay in Hong Kong for some more days.

31.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 on the same facts 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

32.The applicant’s application is dismissed.

33.A RPO in terms of paragraph 31 be made against the applicant.

Dated the 7^th day of September 2021

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

[1] Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Limited and China Resources (Holdings) Company Limited (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1, §48

[2] Ibid §§7 & 8