Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim (section 37zo)

Legal area

Court

13 May 2026

CHAUHAN KAUSHAL KISHOR PRASAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL596/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Director properly applied section 37ZO, concluding there had been no significant change of circumstances and the subsequent claim merely re‑hashed previously rejected grounds; given repeated attempts and absence at the show‑cause hearing, the Court was satisfied an RPO was necessary to prevent further abuse of process and to protect the Court's functions.
29 Apr 2026

MOHAMMED ASLAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1188/2021

The Director correctly applied section 37ZO and reasonably concluded the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or that any change, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director's findings of fact were within his exclusive ambit and exhibited no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Apr 2026

LE THI HONG PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in the previous claim, failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO, produced only bare assertions without supporting evidence, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; accordingly the court dismissed the leave application and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
22 Apr 2026

PRAWIT YUSUK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2259
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL628/2026

Extension of time to file the leave application was refused because the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, there was no significant change of circumstances, the Board had rejected key factual assertions (informer role) and state protection/internal relocation remained available; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's decision, so leave was refused and extension denied.
15 Apr 2026

RAI SUBAS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2097
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL345/2021

The Director lawfully exercised his power under s37ZO in refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision contained reasons, was not irrational or procedurally unfair and satisfied the applicable standard; consequently leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a proportionate RPO is warranted because the applicant is a vexatious litigant persisting in unmeritorious relitigation.
15 Apr 2026

LE THI HOP v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1983
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL263/2026

The Director and the immigration officer considered the additional material and relevant country information and correctly concluded there was no significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and therefore no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is necessary to prevent abuse by the applicant re-litigating identical grounds.
17 Mar 2026

NGUYEN HUY CHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1543/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite significant change of circumstances under s37ZO or that he had been denied a fair opportunity to clarify his case; the Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was rational and lawful, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
17 Mar 2026

AKHTAR KAMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1455
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL326/2021

The Director's 13 January 2021 decision complied with section 37ZO, correctly applied legal principles, and rationally concluded there was no significant change of circumstances nor realistic prospect of success; the applicant's claim lacked arguability and realistic prospects, so leave is refused, and an RPO is warranted because the applicant is a vexatious litigant who persisted in re-litigating an unmeritorious claim after exhausting appeals.
17 Mar 2026

NGO THI THU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL154/2026

Leave was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in previously finally determined proceedings so she failed to establish the significant change of circumstances required by s37ZO and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; an RPO was justified because the applicant’s conduct showed a likelihood of relitigating the same non-refoulement claim and thus abusing the court’s process.
4 Feb 2026

MD BABU MIA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 705
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL384/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any specific, reasonably arguable grounds with requisite particulars; the Director properly applied section 37ZO and gave detailed, lawful reasons that there was no significant change of circumstances nor a realistic prospect of success, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant is a vexatious litigant who abused the court process by repeatedly re-litigating previously finally determined claims.