Awan Abdul Wahab v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 713/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 713 of 2026

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 oral submissions by the Applicant 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 Director’s Decision dated 9 October 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his subsequent claim on the applicable risks[1], which had been determined in his previous application under HCAL 994 of 2019 (“the previous claim”).

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 1 June 2026. He did not admit that his subsequent claim application is squarely on the same facts and grounds or his previous claim. He said he has raised other threats to his life in his subsequent claim application.

The procedural history

4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

5.The Director dismissed his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board found that his claim was unfounded 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 25 July 2023. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal on 21 November 2023.

7.He filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Appeal refused his application. He applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal. On 11 November 2024, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed his application.

8.By letter dated 21 January 2025, 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

9.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.

10.Upon the immigration officer’s advice, he had submitted additional materials in support of his application. In the letters submitted by the applicant, the applicant has raised 2 incidents, one took place in 2020, the other in 2024. He relied on the 2020 incident where his relative called Faisal was murdered in Pakistan on 18 August 2020, and in 2024, his cousin Zahir was shot down by gun in Pakistan on 16 January 2024. He has also submitted documents in support of his new grounds.

11.The immigration officer considered his evidence and found that he should not be allowed to lodge his subsequent claim because he had failed in his previous claim and those 2 incidents mentioned above were not related to him personally and they should not impose any threat on his life.

12.The immigration officer did not accept that the applicant’s subsequent claim application satisfied the conditions under section 37ZO of the Ordinance and he refused his application.

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

13.The applicant filed Form 86 on 10 April 2026 for judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

14.In the affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason to challenge the Director’s Decision. He has attached a copy of the Director’s Decision to his affirmation.

Discussion

15.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).

16.The Court will bear in mind that the Director’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that his 2 relatives were murdered in 2024 and 2026, which took place after his previous claim. I suppose he referred to the incidents in 2020 and 2024 as mentioned above. He further said that now he has a wife and children in Hong Kong.

17.In the Director’s Decision, the immigration officer has stated that he now has a family in Hong Kong and he is applying for a dependent’s visa. He may continue with his application, which is a matter for the Director, but irrelevant to this application.

18.The immigration officer has considered his previous claim and the 2020 and 2024 incidents. The additional incidents in 2020 and 2024 are not related to the applicant. Besides, state protection will be available to him if he returns to Pakistan and internal relocation is viable, which will mitigate or neutralize his risks. These are the facts found by the immigration officer on behalf of the Director. The Court of Appeal in Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

19.There is no valid reason to challenge the Director’s Decision.

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

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

The RPO

22.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.

23.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.

24.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.

25.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

26.The applicant’s application is dismissed.

27.RPO in terms of paragraph 25 be made against the applicant.

Dated the 17^th day of June 2026

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