Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent non‑refoulement claim under section 37zo

Legal area

Court

20 Feb 2026

SIDDIQUE AAMIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1058
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL149/2021

Leave was granted because the applicant demonstrated an arguable case that Officer YIU committed errors of law and irrationality by improperly discounting hearsay without adequate contextual assessment, failing to apply the low standard of proof appropriate to non‑refoulement claims and failing to give adequate reasons, such that the proposed judicial review has a real prospect of success.
13 Feb 2026

BUI VAN THUAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL307/2022

The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without explanation, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success, and the Director lawfully applied s37ZO by finding no significant change since the prior determination and properly having regard to prior findings (including state protection); there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and refusing leave caused no unfair prejudice.
4 Feb 2026

HOANG VAN NANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2533/2025

The applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in his previously finally determined claim; therefore the subsequent claim did not demonstrate the significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success required by section 37ZO, so leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent further abuse of process.
27 Jan 2023

MANUEL RAFAEL JR. KALAW, also known as PAFAEL K MANUEL JR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1224/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant's subsequent claim did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances giving a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's adverse credibility and protection findings were not displaced and the additional material was unpersuasive. An RPO is necessary because the applicant's conduct and repeated attempts to relitigate the same facts amounted to abuse of process and, if unrestricted, would allow further meritless proceedings to be issued solely to remain in Hong Kong.
26 Jul 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2275
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL526/2022

The Director's Decision was lawful and not Wednesbury unreasonable or procedurally unfair; the subsequent claim failed the statutory s37ZO threshold because it relied on the same or similar facts and produced no significant change giving a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is necessary to prevent abuse of process.

Hong Kong Case Law

SIDDIQUE AAMIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

BUI VAN THUAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

HOANG VAN NANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

MANUEL RAFAEL JR. KALAW, also known as PAFAEL K MANUEL JR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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