BISWAS SUBHASH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BISWAS SUBHASH AND OTHERS 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 as required by s37ZO; the Director reasonably concluded the new material was essentially the same as prior material, prior findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation were unchallenged and dispositive, and there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success or procedural unfairness warranting leave.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1581
Parties
1st Applicant: Biswas Subhash; 2nd Applicant: Mistry Biswas Tapati; 3rd Applicant: Biswas Suchita; 4th Applicant: Biswas Niketa; 5th Applicant: Biswas Anksh; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL2392/2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Unified Screening Mechanism, Internal Relocation, State Protection, Procedural Fairness, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Unified Screening Mechanism Internal Relocation +3 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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Biswas Subhash

1st Applicant

Mistry Biswas Tapati

2nd Applicant

Biswas Suchita

3rd Applicant

Biswas Niketa

4th Applicant

Biswas Anksh

5th Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Leave Application Refused

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 alleged new information amounted to a 'significant change of circumstances' and, with prior material, gave a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Director failed to consider relevant COI or properly assess BOR Article 2 and 3 risks and persecution risk under Art 33 Refugee Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO; the Director reasonably concluded the new material was essentially the same as prior material, prior findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation were unchallenged and dispositive, and there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success or procedural unfairness warranting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed