LE VAN CAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

LE VAN CAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Under section 37ZO the applicant was required to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and that, together with prior materials, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; he failed to do so and only repeated prior allegations without particulars, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2001
Parties
Applicant: Le Van Can; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL2221/2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim, Torture Risk, Internal Relocation, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Section 37 ZO Immigration Ordinance, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Torture Risk +5 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Van Can

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant may make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the Director's refusal was Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair
  3. 3 Whether the Director failed to give appropriate weight to COI and personal background including alleged state acquiescence and corruption

Ratio Decidendi

Under section 37ZO the applicant was required to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and that, together with prior materials, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; he failed to do so and only repeated prior allegations without particulars, and the Director's assessment that state protection and internal relocation negated the risk was not legally flawed or procedurally unfair; accordingly there was no realistic prospect of success and leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused