Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim under section 37zo immigration ordinance

Legal area

Court

25 Oct 2023

ALI MOHSIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2603
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1295/2023

Applicant relied on the same materially discredited facts as in his finally determined previous claim and failed to show any significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO; the Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim; there was no realistic prospect of success and the court properly refused leave and made a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
17 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1074/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's prior findings; given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate concluded claims and abuse the court's process, a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was necessary and proportionate.
29 Mar 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL911/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay (over 11 weeks) was inordinate and unexplained, the intended judicial review disclosed no reasonably arguable ground, and the Director lawfully applied s37ZO in finding no sufficient evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success; because the applicant persistently sought to re‑litigate a finally determined non‑refoulement claim the court properly made a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 HCO and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.
24 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1296/2022

The Director's refusal was lawful: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and did not show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision; therefore there was no prospect of success in judicial review. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate an already finally determined claim, a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
25 Jul 2022

DINESH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2022

The Director did not err in refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with his prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process and no prospect of success in judicial review, therefore leave is refused; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, his conduct constituted an abuse of process and met the statutory and in…

Hong Kong Case Law

ALI MOHSIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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

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

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

DINESH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]