Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent non‑refoulement claim (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

TRAN QUANG THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1554/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness; his request to reopen or make a subsequent claim repeated previously rejected facts without evidence of significant change as required by s37ZO(2); and his late appeal was unjustified and not within provisions permitting appeal, so there was no prospect of success.
9 Sept 2025

DO VAN MANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1305/2025

Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because the Director correctly applied section 37ZO and the subsequent claim relied on essentially the same grounds as previously determined; there was no significant change of circumstances and the Director's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available were not shown to be unlawful; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and proportionate to prevent abuse of process.
15 Jul 2025

CALIP MYRNA JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1085/2025

The Director's refusal to allow a subsequent non-refoulement claim under s37ZO was lawful because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or that the new material, together with previous material, gives a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision; the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate previously finally determined claims constitute an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order with conditions for leave to bring future proceedings.
10 Jun 2025

TRAN DUC NGOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1930
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL545/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant relied on the same reasons as his previous claim, failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances under s37ZO or provide evidence beyond bare assertions to show a realistic prospect of success, and therefore the Director's refusal was not shown to be vulnerable to judicial review; because the applicant was likely to continue issuing repetitious proceedings to remain in Hong Kong the court lawfully imposed a restricted proceedings order to prevent abuse of process.
25 Apr 2024

AHMED ISHTIAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1084
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL425/2024

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, when combined with previously submitted material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; prior unchallenged findings on state protection, internal relocation and credibility were determinative. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate the same matter, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction was…
18 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 589
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1287/2022

The Director permissibly exercised discretion under s37ZO by refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in deciding without a screening interview; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent further vexatious re‑litigation of finally determined non‑refoulement claims.
2 Feb 2023

DAR MUHAMMAD ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL269/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused in respect of all decisions because (1) the alleged 2010 Notice was not a decision and the application lacked subject‑matter, (2) the 2014 Notice and the Board's 2015 decision were out of time, final, and the applicant's withdrawal and voluntary repatriation constituted abuse of process, and (3) the 2022 refusal to permit a subsequent claim correctly applied s37ZO: no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success was demonstrated, the applicant provided no particulars or evidence, and the immigration officer's decision was…

Hong Kong Case Law

TRAN QUANG THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

DO VAN MANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

CALIP MYRNA JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

TRAN DUC NGOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

AHMED ISHTIAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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

DAR MUHAMMAD ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]