Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 37zo

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

NGUYEN DUC CUONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2441
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1169/2021

The Director correctly applied section 37ZO, invited and received further submissions, found the intended subsequent claim was substantially the same as the previous claim and that there was no significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; those factual and evaluative findings were lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
24 Mar 2026

PHAM THI THAO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1045
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL372/2022

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was late (approximately nine months) without explanation, failed to identify any arguable public law grounds, and the Director lawfully applied s37ZO and reasonably concluded there was no significant change of circumstances nor realistic prospect of success; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was found in the Director’s decision.
31 Oct 2025

NGUYEN THI THAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2028/2025

The Director correctly applied s.37ZO, found the Request to be a reiteration of the previous claim and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; the Director lawfully considered COI and supporting documents, made lawful factual findings free of error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly the leave application lacked realistic prospects and must be refused; no RPO was warranted given the applicant's explanation that a middle person made th…
22 Aug 2025

TRUONG THI THANH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3636
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1419/2025

The immigration officer correctly applied the law governing subsequent claims under section 37ZO, found no significant change of circumstances or new material that would give a realistic prospect of success, gave fair procedural treatment, and reached a rational decision not to allow a subsequent claim; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Apr 2025

PHAM TIEN DUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1113
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL256/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any specific new material or arguable legal error that would give his subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO; having found a likely pattern of abuse, the court lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order preventing the applicant from commencing or continuing non-refoulement proceedings without leave.
11 Feb 2025

ISLAM SHAHIDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 339
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2322/2024

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on the same facts; the Director reasonably concluded the additional materials were unsupported and that state protection and internal relocation were available, and the court properly exercised its inherent jurisdiction to make an RPO to prevent abuse of process.
5 Nov 2024

LEONCIO JULIE MADRIAGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1581/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s decision and failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; given the history of final determinations the court made a RPO under s27 and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent continued vexatious re-litigation, with conditions and a five-year duration.
23 Jul 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1833
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL745/2024

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his prior determination and therefore failed to show that a subsequent claim would have a realistic prospect of success; no error of law or procedural unfairness was demonstrated, so leave is refused.
18 Jul 2024

SYED FAISAL HUSSAIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1733
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL653/2024

Leave refused because the applicant relied on the same facts as his previous claim and failed to demonstrate the significant change in circumstances required by s37ZO; the immigration officer reasonably concluded the new material did not alter the assessment and that state protection and internal relocation remained viable, so there was no realistic prospect of success in judicial review.
27 Mar 2024

TRINH THI HONG THU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCA 229
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP216/2022

The Court refused the extension of time and the intended appeal because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground showing that the Judge erred; the Director's decision that there was no significant change of circumstances under s37ZO was within his province and not infected by public law error, irrationality or procedural unfairness.