Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent torture/non-refoulement claims (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1822
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL518/2024

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 under s37ZO or to show that any change together with prior material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings on state protection and internal relocation; because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined claims, a RPO was justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction, with specified leave and proced…
9 Jun 2023

HAIDER SUFYAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL391/2021

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, together with prior material, would give any subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; prior adverse credibility findings were properly relied upon. Given repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent vexatious proceedings.
12 Apr 2023

WIWIN SETYOWATI SAMIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 544
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1034/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any reliable material that, together with prior material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in declining to hold a screening interview; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a RPO was justified to prevent further vexatious relitigation.
24 Mar 2023

WIJESIRI GUNAWARDANA NANDANIE v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 863
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1528/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director lawfully applied section 37ZO, correctly found no sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his decision; a Restricted Proceedings Order was properly made because the applicant had habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim without viable grounds, amounting to an abuse of process and justifying restrictions on future proceedings and appeals under statutory and inheren…
27 Feb 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL827/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that, together with previous material, the claim had a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision, and an RPO was justified under s27/s27A and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent persistent, vexatious relitigation after final determinations.
25 Nov 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3260
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL519/2022

Extension of time was refused because the Applicant was more than ten weeks late, gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the intended judicial review had no reasonably arguable grounds; the Director correctly applied s37ZO in refusing permission for a subsequent claim as there was no sufficient evidence of significant change or realistic prospect of success; because the Applicant persistently sought to relitigate a finally determined claim the court properly imposed a five-year RPO to prevent further abuse of process.
7 Sept 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL812/2021

The Director's refusal was lawful because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and failed to show that any change together with previously submitted material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision and no prospect of success in the intended judicial review, and an RPO was necessary because the Applicant had persistently and without reasonable ground attempted to re-litigate matters already finally determined, constituting abuse of process.
23 Aug 2021

RAM ISHVER DASS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2470
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL729/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and failed to show that any change combined with earlier material would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; accordingly there was no arguable judicial review and leave was refused. Given the applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate finally determined matters, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process and waste of judicial resources.