Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent torture/non-refoulement claim (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2025

MOHAMMED SAYEED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL42/2021

The Director's refusal was lawful because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and the claimed grounds were essentially the same as previously and finally determined; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success for judicial review; repeated attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim constituted an abuse of process justifying a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction.
15 Aug 2024

TACTAY DANITAS TUBOG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2109
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1005/2024

The Director did not err in law or procedure: the applicant failed to show sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction is warranted to prevent further vexatious re-litigation.
9 Apr 2024

NGUYA ADAM IDDI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 971
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL181/2024

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances or any particulars that, when combined with previous material, would produce a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision; because the applicant persisted in re-litigating a finally determined claim without viable grounds, a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted under s27/s27A and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to preven…
7 Dec 2023

AZUBUINE SOLOMON KINGSLEY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1218/2023

Leave was granted because the applicant advanced fresh independent medical evidence that was reasonably arguable to be material and potentially to undermine prior credibility findings, meeting the low threshold of reasonable arguability for permission to seek judicial review of the Director's refusal under s37ZO; the court held that it was arguable the Director failed to properly assess how the new evidence affected the realistic prospect of success.
9 Jun 2023

MMADUABUCHI AUGUSTIN CHUKWUMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1542
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL526/2023

The court refused to extend time because the Applicant's 3.5 month delay was substantial and unjustified, the intended grounds were unarguable and lacked merit, the Director had properly applied s37ZO and reasonably concluded there was no significant change or realistic prospect of success based on the available evidence, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; consequently the leave application was dismissed and a Restricted Proceedings Order was made to prevent further vexatious re-litigation of non-refoulement claims without leave for a period of five years.
25 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1018
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL359/2023

The application for leave was refused and time extension denied because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for a substantial delay, his proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable or meritorious, and the Director’s refusal to permit a subsequent claim fell within lawful exercise of s37ZO given prior final adverse findings, lack of credible new evidence of significant change, and continued availability of state protection/internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to relitigate finally determined non‑refoulement issues, a five‑year RPO was justified t…
17 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1267/2022

The court refused to extend time because the applicant was 17 days late, offered no good reason for the delay, and the intended application had no prospect of success; on the merits the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and correctly found no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success given prior adverse findings including availability of state protection and internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate matters finally determined, the court exercised statutory and inherent powers to make a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to preve…
12 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 548
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1192/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and a RPO was justified to prevent further abuse of process given repeated, meritless attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims.
21 Feb 2023

NILA AGUSTINA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 473
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL647/2022

The Director's refusal was upheld because the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO and the new allegations were essentially the same as previously rejected matters; previous findings that state/police protection and reasonable internal relocation were available meant the claimed new threats did not give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims, an RPO was warranted under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, with specified condi…
23 Jun 2022

MAKHTOOM WASEEM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1835
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL75/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence to satisfy s37ZO that there had been a significant change of circumstances since the prior final determination or that, together with prior material, any change would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director’s decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury‑unreasonable.