Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim under s.37zo

Legal area

Court

19 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL251/2026

The Director properly applied s.37ZO, made fact-based findings that the new materials were non-specific and did not show a significant change or realistic prospect of success, and there were no public law errors (procedural unfairness, irrationality or error of law); accordingly the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed; the court will amend Form 86 to strike out the Board as respondent and identify the Director as the proper respondent.
25 Feb 2026

MASSAKI KELVINE RICHARD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1074
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2747/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success or a significant change in circumstances as required by s.37ZO; the Director's decision was therefore lawful on supervisory review. An RPO was justified and made to prevent further abuse of court process by repetitious, duplicative litigation.
30 Dec 2025

MAJEED ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2427/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in his previously determined claim, he failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO and had no realistic prospect of success; a Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted to prevent abuse of process.
9 Sept 2025

VU VAN TUAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1107/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO, having relied on substantially the same grounds as previously determined; the Director's assessment that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection/internal relocation were available was lawful and not subject to supervisory interference. Given the repetitive and abusive nature of the proceedings, an RPO was necessary to prevent further abuse of process.
25 Mar 2025

SHAH ALAM MIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 863
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL81/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on substantially the same, previously rejected grounds and failed to demonstrate the s.37ZO threshold of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision was not shown to be unlawfully made. An RPO was warranted under the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and was made in specified terms for five years.
25 Mar 2025

TOCHUKWU PETER OBIMEZIE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 849
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL221/2025

The applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO or any realistic prospect of success on a subsequent non-refoulement claim; the Director lawfully treated the claim as a continuation of the prior claim and properly relied on country information; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is appropriate to prevent further abusive proceedings.
21 Jan 2025

MARTUTI SRI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2047/2024

The Director's decision was upheld because the applicant relied on the same reasons as in her previous finally determined claim, produced no significant new or substantiated evidence demonstrating a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO, and the Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, refused leave to apply for judicial review and made an RPO to prevent abuse of process.
17 Dec 2024

MADBER NASIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1751/2024

The applicant was denied leave because he relied on the same facts already rejected in his previous claim and failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO that, together with prior material, would give a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave was dismissed, and an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
3 Dec 2024

IHSAN UL HAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1787/2024

The applicant's intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success because the Director correctly found no significant change of circumstances since the finally determined previous claim and there was no new credible material; the applicant's repetition of previously rejected facts demonstrated an intention to abuse the process, warranting a restricted proceedings order preventing fresh non‑refoulement litigation in the High Court without leave.
12 Nov 2024

DAO TRONG TRUONG AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1502/2024

The court found the applicants relied on the same facts and that the additional material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed and a restricted proceedings order was justified to prevent abuse of process.