Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim limitation (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2464
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1226/2021

The court concluded there was a reasonably arguable case because the Director may have committed error of law or procedural unfairness by failing to assess the applicant's risk under BOR 2 when refusing permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was granted to enable full consideration of that arguable error.
4 Feb 2026

MOHAMMAD TITU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2124/2020

The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation, lacked any reasonably arguable grounds or realistic prospects of success, and the Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim complied with section 37ZO and was lawful, fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable; a five‑year Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary and proportionate to prevent ongoing abuse of process by a vexatious litigant.
12 Apr 2023

DAR MUHAMMAD ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2023] HKCA 468
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's s37ZO decision; the immigration officer lawfully and fairly concluded there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success, and the applicant's delay and prior conduct amounted to abuse of process.
7 Oct 2021

RE AL AMIN SHAK MOHAMMAD

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1488
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/2021

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO in concluding there was no significant change of circumstances and no realistic prospect of success; the judge correctly refused leave because the applicant advanced no arguable public law ground, no procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, and the appeal is an improper attempt to relitigate factual findings primarily within the Director/Board's province.
4 Sept 2018

RAM CHANDER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2018

The court refused leave and dismissed the appeal because the challenge to the 21 June 2016 decision was out of time and no leave under Section 14AA was justified given no good reason for delay, and because the Director properly refused to allow the subsequent claim dated 2 June 2017 under s37ZO and the Director's guidance as the applicant failed to adduce sufficient cogent evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, with prior materials, would give the claim a realistic prospect of success; judicial review had no merit.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

MOHAMMAD TITU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

DAR MUHAMMAD ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

RE AL AMIN SHAK MOHAMMAD

RAM CHANDER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION