Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

19 May 2026

MANE HAMIROU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2796
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2729/2025

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 abu…
17 Mar 2026

BISWAS SUBHASH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1581
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2392/2025

Leave was refused because the applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO; the Director reasonably concluded the new material was essentially the same as prior material, prior findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation were unchallenged and dispositive, and there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success or procedural unfairness warranting leave.
5 Mar 2026

NGUYEN BUI TUYEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL18/2026

The Director lawfully refused the applicant leave to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to show any significant change of circumstances or that, combined with prior material, a subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedurally unfair conduct by the Director, and in light of persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
22 Jan 2026

OKEKE STANLEY CHIGBOGU AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 391
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2084/2025

Leave was refused because the Applicants failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previously submitted material, would give any subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; prior final adverse credibility findings and conclusive determinations by the Board and appellate courts were properly taken into account, the Director's decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness, and an RPO was justified to prevent continued abusive re-litigation.
20 Nov 2025

NGUYEN THE QUYNH alias VU VAN VIET v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1178/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence to show a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; prior unchallenged findings on availability of state protection and internal relocation lawfully informed the refusal; no procedural unfairness arose from declining further extensions after extensive accommodation had been given; accordingly there was no arguable ground for judicial review and leave was refused.
7 Nov 2025

AHMED SHABBIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2064/2025

Leave was refused because the Director lawfully and reasonably concluded the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, the new allegations were not credible or timely, and prior findings that state protection and internal relocation negated risk remained determinative; on that basis the application had no prospect of success and constituted an attempt to re-litigate finally determined matters, justifying a RPO to prevent abuse of process.
9 Oct 2025

BADAL DAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4766
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1954/2025

Leave was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied the law on subsequent claims (s37ZO), properly assessed the submitted materials, found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, provided adequate procedural fairness including translation and referral to Duty Lawyer Service, and reached a decision that was not irrational or Wednesbury-unreasonable.
30 Sept 2025

HOANG VAN RONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1670/2025

The applicant relied on the same facts and grounds as his previously determined claim and failed to satisfy section 37ZO by demonstrating a significant change giving a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no realistic chance of success for judicial review and leave was refused, and an RPO was necessary to prevent further abuse of the court’s process.
18 Sept 2025

LE XUAN TRUONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4070
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1654/2025

The Director's decision refusing permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim was lawful and reasonable: the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or sufficient new evidence as required by s37ZO, prior findings on state protection and internal relocation remain intact and relevant, and there was no procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO was warranted to prevent continued abuse of process given repeated unsuccessful attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims.
18 Sept 2025

GAGANDEEP KAUR AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1074/2025

The Director lawfully concluded the applicants failed to satisfy section 37ZO because the subsequent claim rested on essentially the same grounds and lacked sufficient evidence of a significant change that, together with prior material, would give realistic prospects of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was found; because the applicants persistently sought to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO under section 27/27A and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified (RPO imposed for five years with leave requirements).