Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim under section 37zo

Legal area

Court

18 May 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL439/2026

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, found no significant change of circumstances and that the intended subsequent claim had no realistic prospect of success; the officer observed procedural fairness in notifying the applicant and seeking further information, and the decision was neither legally flawed nor Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
15 May 2026

TRINH QUOC HUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2758
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL734/2022

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, fairly assessed the evidence and found no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success; those factual and evaluative findings were within the decision-maker's remit, involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review must be refused.
13 May 2026

OJASCASTRO WILMA RIVERA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2667
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL166/2026

Because the applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in her previously dismissed claim, there was no significant change under s37ZO and no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
30 Apr 2026

EJIKE EMMANUEL SUNDAY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2479
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL183/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, the applicant's new evidence merely repeated or supplemented matters already rejected by the Board and did not amount to a significant change of circumstances or give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and there was no identifiable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director’s 2021 Notice.
22 Apr 2026

NGUYEN VAN THANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2263
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2793/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the immigration officer correctly applied s37ZO, rationally concluded there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success for a subsequent claim, observed procedural fairness, and the decision did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
22 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL348/2026

Applicant admitted reliance on the same facts and reasons as her previously dismissed claim; the immigration officer reasonably found no significant change under s37ZO and there was no realistic prospect of success; leave was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process by re-litigation of identical non-refoulement claims.
22 Apr 2026

BUI THANH TAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL403/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in his previous claim, the additional materials did not demonstrate a significant change in circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, and therefore there was no arguable ground for judicial review; a Restricted Proceedings Order was made to prevent further abuse of court process, prohibiting fresh non-refoulement proceedings without leave for a period of five years and prescribing procedural safeguards for any leave applications.
1 Apr 2026

VU XUAN MAT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL945/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant admitted relying on the same facts and grounds as his previous claim and failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; the Director lawfully found the subsequent claim did not have a realistic prospect of success and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair.
30 Mar 2026

SHERPA PEMBA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2511/2020

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, lawfully evaluated the evidence (finding the asserted changes to be largely unproven and insufficient to alter the previous risk assessment), observed a high standard of procedural fairness, and reached a reasoned decision which was not irrational; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
27 Mar 2026

NGUYEN VAN TRONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL558/2022

The court refused extension of time and refused leave because the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for a many‑months delay, the delay was in the category where leave may be refused irrespective of merits, and the Director's 2022 Notice contained no error of law, was procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.