HAMID ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

HAMID ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director properly applied s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that any change, when combined with previous material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 119
Parties
Applicant: Hamid Abdul; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL1102/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage — Application for Leave Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Torture Claim, Unified Screening Mechanism, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, State Protection and Internal Relocation
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law International Refugee Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Torture Claim Unified Screening Mechanism +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamid Abdul

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Stage — Application for Leave Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent torture/non-refoulement claim under s37ZO
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances since the previous determination
  3. 3 Whether the Director committed error of law or procedural unfairness warranting leave for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

The Director properly applied s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that any change, when combined with previous material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed