Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim procedure

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

MUDASSAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2195/2020

The Director lawfully refused the Applicant permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; procedural fairness was observed by inviting further materials and advising availability of legal assistance, no statutory right to appeal the refusal exists, and the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 High Court Ordinance and t…
12 Dec 2025

VU THI TUYET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5917
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2226/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularize grounds or make full disclosure in Form 86 and did not demonstrate any public law error (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) in the Board's or Director's decisions; factual findings by the Board regarding lack of real risk, adequacy of state protection and viability of internal relocation were within the Board's province and were not shown to be legally defective, and the applicant's asserted changed circumstances for a subsequent claim were bare and speculative.
23 Oct 2025

HARSHA BAHADUR THAPA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5090
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2100/2025

The detention is lawful: the DO is valid, detention is solely for removal, the Director acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents, and the primary cause of delay is the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities; under Hardial Singh and Johnson Benjamin such detainee-caused delay should not render detention unreasonable, and the applicant's convictions, absconding history and unwillingness to return create real risks justifying continued detention.
12 Mar 2024

PARAMJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL161/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision. A RPO was warranted because the Applicant has repeatedly sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting an abuse of process.
12 Mar 2024

ALAM MOHAMMAD ASHRAFUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 738
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL162/2024

Leave for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in s37ZO(2) by providing sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director applied correct legal principles, was entitled to rely on prior findings about state protection and internal relocation, and no procedural unfairness or error of law was shown. A Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the Applicant has persistently attempted to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, amounting to an abuse of…
27 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 490
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL790/2022

The application for extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time without good reason, failed to provide any evidence of a significant change of circumstances or arguable grounds, and the Director's decision to refuse a subsequent claim was lawful and procedurally fair; a five-year RPO was justified to prevent continuing abuse of process given the history of conclusively determined prior proceedings and repeated attempts to re-litigate.
14 Jul 2022

RAJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL291/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant gave no good reason for the nine-day delay and the intended grounds for judicial review were not reasonably arguable; the Director's decision to refuse a subsequent claim was lawful and not procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable given lack of significant change, lack of credible new evidence, low assessed risk and available state protection and internal relocation; an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process after repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined non-refoulement claims.

Hong Kong Case Law

MUDASSAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

VU THI TUYET v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HARSHA BAHADUR THAPA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

PARAMJIT SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ALAM MOHAMMAD ASHRAFUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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

RAJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]