Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claims (s37zo)

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2025

LE VAN LOC alias LE VAN HIEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2170/2025

The applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's decision that the subsequent claim was unsubstantiated, lacked personalised risk and that state protection/internal relocation were viable was not shown to be legally flawed; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is justified to prevent further abuse of process.
19 Jun 2025

LATHWAL NAVEEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2309/2024

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's eight-week delay was substantial and unjustified, and the intended challenge had no real prospect of success because the Director lawfully concluded the asserted change did not, together with prior material and established findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation, give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; therefore leave was dismissed.
16 Jan 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2206/2024

The Director lawfully and reasonably refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that, when combined with prior material, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown; and, because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order under s27 (and the court's inherent jurisdiction) was justified to prevent abuse of process.
21 Nov 2024

MOLINA ARMANDO VILLANUEVA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3246
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1650/2024

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; given repeated final determinations and the applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate without new supporting evidence, a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process.
12 Apr 2023

ANITA SUSILOWATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 546
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1168/2022

The Director rightly refused permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or credible new evidence giving the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; no unfairness arose from declining a screening interview; consequently leave for judicial review was refused and an RPO was justified to prevent further vexatious re-litigation, with specified conditions and a five-year duration.
28 Mar 2023

MTANGI EMILY MOSSES v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 878
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL218/2023

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, when combined with prior materials, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in that decision. Given the Applicant's repeated attempts to re-litigate an already finally determined claim and the absence of viable grounds, an RPO was justified to prevent abuse of the court's process and to restrict further proceedings without lea…
16 Mar 2023

CLAVERO JOY CABALLERO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL684/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's almost five-week delay was inordinate, she offered no satisfactory excuse, and her intended challenge had no realistic prospect of success given prior adverse findings and absence of significant change of circumstances under s37ZO; accordingly leave was dismissed and a five-year RPO was justified to prevent habitual vexatious relitigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.
27 Feb 2023

RAI GITA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 496
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL903/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or that, together with prior material, a subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success; the Director applied the correct statutory test under s37ZO, exercised permissible discretion without legal error or procedural unfairness, and the Applicant's persistent attempts to relitigate a finally determined claim justified a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
3 Jan 2023

NESIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 39
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL624/2022

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was warranted because the applicant's almost 11-month delay was inordinate, his excuse unacceptable, and he produced no reliable evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any arguable error of law in the Director's decision; a RPO was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, amounting to abuse of process.
18 Nov 2022

MOLLAH SALIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL616/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or any new material that, combined with previous material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director properly applied the statutory test, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, and prior findings established low risk and viable internal relocation; a RPO was warranted because the applicant had habitually and persistently attempted to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting an abuse…