Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent torture claim (section 37zo)

Legal area

Court

1 Feb 2024

MD WAHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 221
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1754/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the immigration officer erred in law and acted procedurally unfairly by failing to treat the new circumstances advanced by the applicant as matters properly subject to the appeal procedures under the Ordinance; the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on judicial review of the Director's decision rejecting permission to make a subsequent claim.
5 May 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL439/2023

The court refused extension of time because the Applicant's delay (almost two months) was inordinate, ignorance of procedural rules was not a valid excuse, and the intended application had no arguable merits; the Director's 31 October 2022 decision was lawfully reached as the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or provide sufficient supporting evidence to give a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim constituted an abuse of process and justified a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order…
28 Sept 2021

HOSSAIN MD FARHAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2901
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL851/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances since the previous final determinations and failed to show that any such change together with earlier material would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision. A Restricted Proceedings Order was appropriate because the applicant had habitually and persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, constituting an abus…
19 Aug 2021

ADHIKARI PABITTRA CHANDRA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2420
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL667/2021

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or that any change together with prior material gave the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate a finally determined claim without viable grounds, a RPO under s27 HCO (and the court's inherent jurisdiction) was justified to prevent abuse of process.

Hong Kong Case Law

MD WAHID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

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

HOSSAIN MD FARHAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

ADHIKARI PABITTRA CHANDRA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]