Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claims

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2026

BILAL AHMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 684
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV384/2025

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable or particularised grounds to overturn the judge's refusal of leave; general allegations without particulars do not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Court will not re-examine the Board's factual assessments on appeal.
6 Jun 2025

VU DINH PHUONG v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL767/2025

The Applicant's detention remains lawful because removal was and is being actively pursued, practical impediments were resolved (travel document issued), the most recent failure to effect removal resulted from the Applicant's deliberate resistance to boarding (a tactical maneuver to delay deportation), and the risk of absconding together with absence of other circumstances favouring release outweighs the Applicant's offers and assurances; therefore the detention period is reasonable under s32(4A) and relevant authorities (Harjang Singh and Johnson Benjamin).
29 May 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2157
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL311/2025

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior final determination as required by s37ZO, his submission merely repeated the prior claim, prior adverse findings on credibility and the availability of state protection and internal relocation remained intact and unchallenged, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
8 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL454/2025

The Director rightly refused the request because the Applicant produced no fresh or probative evidence amounting to a significant change of circumstances that would give a subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the Applicant’s repeated attempts to re-litigate justified a Restricted Proceedings Order under section 27 High Court Ordinance Cap 4.
26 Jul 2024

WARAS SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1774
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1554/2023

Applicant delayed approximately two and a half months, provided no valid reason for the delay, and the Court found no realistic prospect of success because there was no new evidence or arguable error in the 2023 decisions; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
30 Apr 2024

MGBENKA KINGSLEY ONYEKACHI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1173
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL264/2023

Leave and an extension of time were granted because the applicant established a reasonably arguable case that the Director may have failed to adequately investigate and provide adequate reasons under s37ZO as to whether there had been a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success; the applicant’s delay was excused on the specific procedural facts and confusion identified by the court.
18 Jul 2022

LAMA BIKASH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL405/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence to satisfy section 37ZO that there had been a significant change of circumstances which, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s decision. A Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted because the applicant’s repeated attempts to re-litigate a claim finally determined constituted an abuse of process, justifying restrictions and procedural safeguards including l…
10 May 2022

SHEIK FORIED UDDIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL698/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because granting the remedy would serve no practical purpose given the applicant had withdrawn and the alleged detriment had been removed; the court exercised its discretion under established authorities to refuse relief as otiose.
21 Oct 2021

GARILLO RICHARD ORTAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1308/2021

The Director's refusal was lawful and rational because the applicant relied on facts already considered in the finally determined original claim and failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent further abuse of the court process.
30 Sept 2021

TRAN QUANG THANH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL74/2021

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances as required by s.37ZO, there was no procedural unfairness in the Director’s process, and there was no realistic prospect of success given prior findings of low risk, available state protection and reasonable internal relocation and the Applicant’s failure to produce the medical report he relied on.