PHAM VAN THAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

PHAM VAN THAI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and, given unchallenged prior findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, the proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and leave is refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5870
Parties
Applicant: Pham Van Thai; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL661/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; No Oral Hearing Requested by Applicant
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO, Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), State Protection, Internal Relocation, Torture Risk (part Viic), Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Subsequent Claim Under Section 37 ZO Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) State Protection +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pham Van Thai

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused; No Oral Hearing Requested by Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director erred in refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated a significant change of circumstances since the previous determination
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success given prior findings on state protection and internal relocation

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and, given unchallenged prior findings that state protection and internal relocation were available, the proposed subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and leave is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review is refused.