NGUYEN VAN ANH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

NGUYEN VAN ANH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that, together with previous material, would give their subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success for leave to apply for judicial review and leave is refused. Given the clear re-litigation of unchanged facts and the applicants’ intention to persist for the purpose of remaining in Hong Kong, an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity and does not render the 2nd applicant’s application a nullity.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 842
Parties
1st Applicant: Nguyen Van Anh; 2nd Applicant: Nguyen Bao Chi Cherry; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Case Number
HCAL2275/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Applicants’ joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants; non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 treated as mere irregularity
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order, Abuse of Process, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Order 80 Rule 2 Irregularity
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional and Administrative Law Judicial Review Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order Abuse of Process +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nguyen Van Anh

1st Applicant

Nguyen Bao Chi Cherry

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused; Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants demonstrated a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted to challenge the Director of Immigration’s refusal
  3. 3 Whether a restricted proceedings order (RPO) is justified to prevent abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO that, together with previous material, would give their subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success for leave to apply for judicial review and leave is refused. Given the clear re-litigation of unchanged facts and the applicants’ intention to persist for the purpose of remaining in Hong Kong, an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process. Non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 in these proceedings is treated as a mere irregularity and does not render the 2nd applicant’s application a nullity.

Court Disposition

Applicants’ joint application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicants; non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 treated as mere irregularity

Orders

  • Leave for the Applicants to apply for Judicial Review is refused
  • A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) is made against the Applicants in the terms set out in the judgment (prohibiting commencement or continuation of non-refoulement proceedings without leave, specifying application procedure, notice and 7-day pre-filing notification, single application per 3 months, paper...