Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claim under s37zo

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

LE HUU PHUOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL404/2026

The applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; the Director's refusal was not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or irrational; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order is warranted to prevent further abuse of the court's process.
14 Apr 2026

SINGH LAVPREET v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1997
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL461/2026

Extension of time was refused because the Applicant was over three months late without good reason and his explanations were inadequate; the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success because the subsequent claim repeated previously rejected grounds without new evidence or significant change as required by s37ZO; therefore leave was dismissed and a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was necessary to prevent further abuse and vexatious re-litigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.
14 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THE TOAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1996
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL437/2026

Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of any significant change of circumstances or any material that, together with prior material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Director’s decision was neither legally flawed nor procedurally unfair; given repeated attempts to re‑litigate conclusively determined claims, a RPO was justified to prevent abuse of process.
14 Jan 2026

RASU RAMAKRISHNAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL283/2021

The Director correctly applied s37ZO and reasonably concluded the applicant did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances that, together with previous material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable, the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects and leave is refused; given repeated meritless re‑litigation the court properly made a proportionate Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
16 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6225
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2345/2020

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to present sufficient corroborated evidence demonstrating a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, an RPO under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction was justified to prevent abuse of process.
12 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6209
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1253/2025

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, undertook anxious scrutiny, afforded procedural fairness (including DLS referral), and lawfully found the applicant offered no sufficient new evidence of a significant change or realistic prospect of success; the medical evidence did not meet the very high exceptional BOR 3 threshold and the decision was not Wednesbury‑unreasonable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
9 Dec 2025

NGUYEN TRUONG GIANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6112
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2267/2025

The Director’s refusal to allow a subsequent claim was lawful because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; prior unchallenged findings on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation remained valid; the applicant’s grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable so there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given the applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined non‑refoulement claims, a RPO under s27 and the court’s inherent j…
26 Nov 2025

TRAN VAN QUYEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL379/2022

The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant was seven months late without any satisfactory explanation, failed to produce sufficient evidence of a significant change in circumstances as required by s37ZO, had no realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings of state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the Director's refusal was lawful and procedurally fair.
4 Nov 2025

TRAN QUANG THANH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1941/2025

The Director lawfully exercised the statutory gatekeeper function under s37ZO in concluding the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change that, together with prior material, would give any subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the Board correctly held that a refusal to permit a subsequent claim is not appealable under s37ZR; given the Applicant's persistent, repetitive and largely identical challenges over many years without adequate particulars or diligence, there was no prospect of success and leave for judicial review was refused and a RPO…
23 Oct 2025

AHMAD ASHFAQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4772
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1740/2025

The applicant failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in section 37ZO because he did not demonstrate any significant change of circumstances or any new material giving his subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused. Given the history of repeated, unsuccessful attempts and the real risk of further abusive proceedings, the court lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order with specified procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of court process.