OKEKE STANLEY CHIGBOGU AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

OKEKE STANLEY CHIGBOGU AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previously submitted material, would give any subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; prior final adverse credibility findings and conclusive determinations by the Board and appellate courts were properly taken into account, the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and an RPO was justified to prevent continued abusive re-litigation.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 391
Parties
1st Applicant: Okeke Stanley Chigbogu; 2nd Applicant: Okeke Somadina Obiekunie; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL2084/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against both Applicants
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture Claims, Restricted Proceedings Order, Vexatious Litigation, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo)
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Torture Claims Restricted Proceedings Order +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Okeke Stanley Chigbogu

1st Applicant

Okeke Somadina Obiekunie

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants demonstrated a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether there was error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previously submitted material, would give any subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; prior final adverse credibility findings and conclusive determinations by the Board and appellate courts were properly taken into account, the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and an RPO was justified to prevent continued abusive re-litigation.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against both Applicants

Orders

  • Applicants prohibited from commencing or continuing proceedings relating to any non-refoulement claim in the High Court or any appeal without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance
  • All leave applications to be made to the Judge in charge of the Constitutional and Administrative Law List or a designated Judge