Ali Mohammad Zaman v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 1126/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1126 of 2026

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  Leave to apply for judicial review be granted;

2.  The applicant shall issue the originating summons for hearing within 14 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to Order 53, rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court;

3.  A copy of this Order be served on the Department of Justice to work out the proper directions for the judicial review hearing with the applicant; and

4.  Liberty to apply.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.Leave is granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 5 June 2026, refusing to allow the applicant to make a subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 (“the Director’s Decision”). This section provides:

“ Limited on subsequent claim

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has previously made a torture claim must not subsequently make another torture claim.

(2) A person may make a subsequent claim if the person provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that –

(a) there has been a significant change of circumstances since the previous claim was finally determined or withdrawn; and

(b) the change, when taken together with the material previously submitted in support of the previous claim, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success.

(3) In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), an immigration officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an immigration officer or the Appeal Board in relation to a torture claim previously made by the person.

(5) If any immigration officer decides that a person may not make a subsequent claim under subsection (2), the immigration officer must give the person written notice of the decision, and the notice must also include the reasons for the decision. ”

2.The Director’s Decision referred to the applicant’s letter dated 5 May 2026 (“the applicant’s letter”).

3.In the Director’s Decision, the immigration officer referred to the applicant’s previous claim, which was rejected by the Director on 19 December 2023; and upon appeal, dismissed by the Torture Claims Appeal Board on 15 October 2024.

4.In the Director’s Decision, the immigration officer set out the reasons in support of a subsequent claim, which are a summary of the above statutory provisions. The immigration officer did not refer to the contents of the applicant’s letter. He concluded that no further action will be taken in respect of his claim.

5.In the applicant’s letter, the applicant stated that in his previous claim, his enemies were the members of the Awami League. Now his enemies are the members of Jamaat Islami Party. The incidents of his subsequent claim started from 2026, after his previous claim.

6.The incidents took place after the previous claim, clearly a change of the circumstances. These circumstances, if taken together with the previous claim, may constitute good reasons in support of his subsequent claim. If the immigration officer took the view that the facts in support of his applicant’s subsequent claim are not different because of a change of his enemies, still he has to consider whether the new circumstances, taken alone, will constitute good reasons in support of the subsequent claim under section 37ZO (2)(b) of the Ordinance. However, the immigration officer did not give any reason for his decision.

7.The immigration officer’s decision rejecting the applicant’s subsequent claim was therefore made under an error in law in that he did not consider the facts of the applicant’s subsequent claim, unfair procedurally and irrational as there was no reason in support of his conclusion. It is obvious that the applicant has a high chance of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision.

8.The applicant shall issue the originating summons for hearing within 14 days from the date of this Order, pursuant to Order 53, rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court.

9.A copy of this Order be served on the Department of Justice to work out the proper directions for the judicial review hearing with the applicant.

10.Liberty to apply.

Dated the 2^nd day of September 2026

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1