Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent non-refoulement claim

Legal area

Court

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.
24 Mar 2026

DONG VAN TRUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL320/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant filed out of time by a substantial period without explanation and the intended judicial review lacked a realistic prospect of success; the Director properly applied section 37ZO, considered previous findings and did not commit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave was dismissed.
16 Dec 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6227
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2188/2025

Leave to apply for judicial review is granted because the Director's refusal to allow a subsequent claim was reasonably arguable: the Director failed to make clear findings of primary fact, did not appear to have considered relevant COI, and may have erred in assessing availability of state protection and internal relocation and in procedural fairness by not considering further inquiry or interview, thereby meeting the threshold for leave.
4 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3976
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1581/2025

The immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO and legal standards, found the Request to be a reiteration of a previously rejected and found-fictitious claim without significant new evidence or change of circumstances, and gave adequate reasons free of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
27 Aug 2025

TRI ASTUTI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCA 668
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV18/2025

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent claim under s37ZO because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and no public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Director's or the Judge's decision; therefore leave was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Aug 2025

RANA MINA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1007/2025

The Director lawfully concluded the applicant failed to satisfy section 37ZO because the material relied on had been raised and considered in the previous claim and did not show a significant change giving a realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified to prevent abuse of process by re‑litigation of the same facts.
28 Apr 2025

PAL SUSHIL KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL585/2025

Extension of time was refused because the applicant offered no reasonable or credible explanation for the excessive 23‑month delay and the proposed substantive leave application had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's Notice disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and satisfied the Wednesbury standard, so refusal of the subsequent claim and refusal to grant time extension were lawful.
3 Jan 2025

GOPAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCA 34
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV332/2024

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave: the Director legitimately concluded the subsequent claim duplicated the previous private dispute, the applicant produced no adequate evidence of a significant change of circumstances, and prior findings of available state/police protection and internal relocation remained applicable; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown.
10 Dec 2024

JATTA LAMIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1716/2024

Leave was refused because the Director's decision to deny permission to make a subsequent claim was lawful: the applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances or that the new material, together with existing material, gave a realistic prospect of success; the new account was inconsistent with prior evidence and lacked reliable supporting evidence; no error of law or procedural unfairness was identified. A RPO was justified because the applicant persistently sought to re‑litigate a finally determined claim, amounting to an abuse of process, and restrictions were necessary to pr…
10 Oct 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2778
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1018/2024

Leave was granted because the Director, when refusing permission to bring a subsequent non‑refoulement claim, failed to comply with the procedural requirements derived from Paposhvili and related authorities by inadequately addressing relevant country‑of‑origin information and the accessibility of necessary medical treatment to the Applicant; that failure made the decision reasonably arguable and justified grant of leave for judicial review.