Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent claims under s37zo

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2025

SANYANG BAKARY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5861
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1759/2025

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any significant change of circumstances as required by s37ZO and thus had no realistic prospect of success challenging the Director's refusal; the applicant's absence to show cause and the pattern of repetitious filings justified a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
11 Nov 2025

DURU CHARLES ANAYO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL41/2021

The Director lawfully applied section 37ZO and found the applicant's material did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success in judicial review, therefore leave is refused; because the applicant repeatedly and persistently sought to relitigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, an RPO under s27 and the court's inherent jurisdiction is necessary and proportionate to prevent abuse of process.
29 May 2025

VU KIM YEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL556/2025

The Director lawfully refused to allow a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and failed to show that any change combined with prior material would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's assessment including reliance on prior findings of state protection and internal relocation.
21 Jan 2025

KURUPPU ARACHCHI APPUHAMILAGE DON KAPILA ASANKA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1942/2024

The application for leave was dismissed because the immigration officer lawfully applied s37ZO, concluded there was no significant change in circumstances when read with prior materials, and properly relied on country of origin information; the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success. Because the applicant repeatedly pursued the same claim and admitted the factual similarity, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and granted a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.
16 Jan 2025

SHAFI ABDUL alias KHAN MOHAMMAD FARIDUZZAMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 198
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2167/2024

The Director's decision refusing permission for a subsequent claim was lawfully reached: the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success and prior adverse credibility findings could be lawfully relied on; accordingly there was no prospect of success in any judicial review and leave was refused. Given the Applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims and no viable grounds, a RPO was necessary to prevent ongoing abuse of the court's process, and was lawfully made with speci…
23 Jan 2024

BEPARI MANIK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2143/2020

The Director lawfully applied s37ZO and properly found the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change or a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness and, to prevent continued vexatious relitigation of a finally determined claim, a RPO under s27 High Court Ordinance (and the Court's inherent jurisdiction) was justified.
24 Oct 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1259/2023

The Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim because the applicant failed to show any significant change in circumstances that, when combined with previous material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; given the Board's adverse findings about fabrication and the applicant's reliance on the same facts, granting leave would be futile and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.
23 Aug 2023

TRAN THI BICH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL383/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant did not show any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision nor any sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances which, together with previous material, would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's assessment that internal relocation was feasible and that the new claim repeated prior facts was lawful and within Wednesbury bounds.
24 Feb 2023

PALANGDOSAN MARINA LIPAWEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL761/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant's 1.5 month delay was substantial without good reason, the intended challenge had no arguable grounds or realistic prospect of success given prior final determinations that there was no real risk, and the Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim under s37ZO for lack of significant change and realistic prospect; a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was warranted to prevent repeated vexatious re-litigation of finally determined non-refoulement claims.
6 Jan 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 73
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1091/2022

The Director properly found the applicant's purported new facts not credible and that no significant change of circumstances was demonstrated under s37ZO; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused; given repeated litigation and intention to remain in Hong Kong the Court lawfully exercised its inherent jurisdiction to impose a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent abuse of process.