MANE HAMIROU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

MANE HAMIROU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the material advanced did not establish a significant change of circumstances nor, when combined with prior material, a realistic prospect of success in light of unchallenged adverse credibility findings;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2796
Parties
Applicant: Mane Hamirou; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL2729/2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo), Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo), Abuse of Process, Credibility Findings, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Civil Procedure Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim (s37 Zo) Restricted Proceedings Order (rpo) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mane Hamirou

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Refused (application Dismissed)

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 Proper interpretation and application of the 'significant change of circumstances' and 'realistic prospect of success' tests in s37ZO
  3. 3 Whether general Country of Origin Information could corroborate a subsequent claim notwithstanding prior adverse credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the material advanced did not establish a significant change of circumstances nor, when combined with prior material, a realistic prospect of success in light of unchallenged adverse credibility findings; accordingly there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and leave was refused. Given the Applicant's repeated attempts to relitigate conclusively determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; Restricted Proceedings Order made against the Applicant.

Orders

  • Leave application dismissed.
  • Applicant prohibited from commencing or continuing any proceedings in the High Court relating to any non-refoulement claim without the leave of a Judge of the Court of First Instance.