Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent non-refoulement claims

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

VU NGOC SON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL232/2024

Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s.37ZO, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Director's factual findings and decision, rendering the intended judicial review not reasonably arguable.
27 Mar 2026

ALI SALAMAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1651
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1764/2021

The court allowed amendment to replace the Board with the Director as the proposed respondent but dismissed the leave application and refused an extension of time because the applicant failed to identify arguable grounds against the Director's subsequent decision, provided no cogent evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s.37ZO, and the delay was unjustified; the Director had applied the law correctly and observed fairness and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify leave.
13 Mar 2026

MALLIKA ARACHCHE THUSHARA SHANTHI KUMARA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1349/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to plead clear grounds and particulars, the applicant did not demonstrate a significant change of circumstances or any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision under s37ZO, and therefore the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
13 Feb 2026

NGUYEN THI DUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 797
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL253/2022

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant was approximately nine months late with no explanation, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success, and the Director properly applied section 37ZO by concluding there was no sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success, including consideration of prior findings, state protection and internal relocation; no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was found.
19 Jan 2026

NGUYEN THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL493/2022

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; the Director's assessment that state protection and internal relocation were available and that the claim lacked realistic prospects was a factual determination free of public law error; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
7 Jan 2026

RAJ KUMAR LIMBU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 48
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2263/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant provided no written grounds or cogent evidence of a significant change of circumstances or realistic prospect of success; the Director applied section 37ZO correctly and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
13 Dec 2024

NGUYEN THI LOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1153
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2023

The judge did not err in law or fact in refusing extension of time and leave because the Director’s refusal of the subsequent claim was not shown to be unlawful, procedurally unfair or irrational and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; the Court will not reverse absent identifiable error and will not generally entertain new fact-sensitive grounds raised first on appeal.
11 Jul 2022

NDUKWE BARTHOLOMEW CHUKWUMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2020
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL288/2022

The Director correctly applied s37ZO by finding the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and that the new material, when combined with prior material, would give any subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and no prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused. Given repetitive, baseless attempts to re-litigate a finally determined non-refoulement claim, a RPO under s27 and the court’s inherent jurisdiction is warranted to prevent abuse of proce…