Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Subsequent claim threshold (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2025

NGUYEN THI NGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2638/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable ground, did not provide sufficient evidence of any significant change in circumstances under s37ZO to give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and the Director's decision was lawfully and fairly reached; a RPO is justified because the applicant has persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement issues amounting to an abuse of process.
23 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 480
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL702/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or to show that any change combined with previous material would give her subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; given repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined claims, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process and bar fresh non‑refoulement proceedings without leave of a CFI judge.