Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subsequent torture claim

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2026

HAMID ABDUL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 119
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1102/2021

The Director properly applied s37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance: the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or that any change, when combined with previous material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decision, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
12 Nov 2025

RAZA AHMED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2448/2020

The Director's refusal to permit a subsequent claim under s37ZO was lawful: no significant change of circumstances or credible new evidence existed that would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; the 'India' reference was a harmless typo; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the applicant's unexplained delay in seeking legal aid justified uplift of the stay and dismissal of the leave application.
17 Jul 2025

VU THI THANH HUYEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1830/2020

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant did not provide written evidence of a significant change of circumstances nor show that, when combined with prior material, the subsequent claim had a realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings of available state protection and internal relocation; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness, so leave is refused.
5 Nov 2024

MUDASSAR IJAZ ALIAS MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1564/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director’s 30 August 2024 decision, failed to provide evidence of a significant change in circumstances as required by s37ZO, and prior findings of state protection and availability of internal relocation negate any realistic prospect of success; a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified because the applicant has persistently sought to re-litigate finally determined non-refoulement claims, constituting an abuse of process.
9 Nov 2023

PHAM THI TIEM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1456/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant herself withdrew the application; under the Court of Appeal authority this left nothing outstanding and dismissal was the correct disposition, and the scheduled hearing was therefore vacated.
29 Mar 2023

WEWALDENI KANKANAMALAGE SAMAN PUSHPA KUMARA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL996/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission to make a subsequent non-refoulement claim because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances or of a realistic prospect of success as required by section 37ZO; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's decision. Given the applicant's persistent attempts to re-litigate a finally determined claim, an RPO was justified under section 27 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, subject to the specified leave and procedural conditions.
24 Feb 2023

SITI SARMIATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 482
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL783/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent non-refoulement/torture claim because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances and a realistic prospect of success under s37ZO; prior findings on credibility and risk by the Director and the Appeal Board were unchallenged and properly relied upon; there was no error of law or procedural unfairness. Given repeated attempts to re-litigate conclusively determined claims, a Restricted Proceedings Order was properly made under s27 of the High Court Ordinance and the court's inheren…
21 Feb 2023

KHATRI BHOJ RAJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 478
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL690/2022

Leave was refused because the applicant did not provide sufficient written evidence showing a significant change of circumstances or a realistic prospect of success as required by s37ZO; the Director’s decision was lawfully reached on COI, credibility and availability of state protection/internal relocation and disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness; an RPO was justified because the applicant had persistently sought to re-litigate a finally determined claim, amounting to abuse of process under s27 and the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
2 Jun 2022

GURVINDER SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCA 775
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2022

The judge correctly refused leave for judicial review because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's decision; the judge lawfully exercised discretion to make a 5‑year restricted proceedings order because the applicant's repeated subsequent claim constituted an abuse of process aimed at prolonging illegal stay and misusing court resources, and the appeal discloses no basis to disturb those conclusions.
27 Jan 2022

MOHAMMAD AMIRUL ISLAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 350
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1715/2021

The application for extension of time was refused because the Applicant’s delay was inordinate and unexplained, the intended judicial review had no prospect of success as the Director correctly applied s37ZO and made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and because the Applicant’s repeated attempts to relitigate finally determined non-refoulement claims justified a Restricted Proceedings Order to prevent further abuse of process.