LE DUC HUU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LE DUC HUU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the subsequent claim relied on the same facts and grounds as the previously determined claim, did not satisfy section 37ZO's requirement of significant change when taken with earlier material, and the Director reasonably found...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6347
Parties
Applicant: Le Duc Huu; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2413/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made
Outcome
Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Leave
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) Abuse of Process +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Duc Huu

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (immigration/non Refoulement) / Leave Application Refused and Restricted Proceedings Order Made

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a significant change in circumstances under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance to justify a subsequent claim
  2. 2 Whether the Director of Immigration's refusal met public law standards and warranted supervisory intervention
  3. 3 Whether a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent abuse of the court process

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success: the subsequent claim relied on the same facts and grounds as the previously determined claim, did not satisfy section 37ZO's requirement of significant change when taken with earlier material, and the Director reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available; accordingly the court dismissed leave and imposed an RPO to prevent further abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the applicant

Orders

  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without leave of the Court of First Instance
  • All applications for leave under this order to be made to Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung or designated judge