Dear Ms Alam,
We refer to your application for access to information of 20 July 2021
relating to statistics on non-refoulement claims. Further to interim reply
of 28 July 2021, please find our substantive reply below:
Q1. The current policies of the Immigration Department (ImmD) pertaining
to its consideration of requests for subsequent claims. In particular, whether
there are any policies which are used to assist Immigration Officers in the
evaluation of whether:
a. There has been a ‘significant’ change of circumstances;
b. ‘Sufficient evidence’ of that change has been provided;
c. The claim has a ‘realistic prospect of success’;
Q2. The forms or procedures which applicants should complete or follow to
make subsequent claims and/or to provide evidence in support of
subsequent claims;
A1 & A2: A person who has previously made a non-refoulement claim must
not subsequently make another non-refoulement claim (i.e. a subsequent
claim), unless he can provide 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withdrawn; and (b) the change, when taken together with the material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. The evidence in writing
needs not be made in any specified form for making a subsequent claim.
In deciding whether or not a person may make a subsequent claim, the case
officer may take into account any finding of credibility or fact made by an
immigration officer or the Torture Claims Appeal Board in relation to a non-
refoulement claim or torture claim previously made by the person.
A non-refoulement claimant would be permitted to make a subsequent claim
if he/she can provide further cogent evidence or information on the current
situation establishing a substantial risk of harm. The decision on whether
a person can make a subsequent claim depends on individual circumstances
of each case.
Q3. The process by which those that make requests for subsequent claims
are referred to the Duty Lawyer Service (DLS), and specifically:
a. What triggers referral to the DLS; and
b. At what stage of processing requests for subsequent claims would the
ImmD determine referral to the DLS is necessary;
A3. Upon receiving a request for making a subsequent claim (“subsequent
claim request”) under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”), the
claimant would be informed in writing the availability of the publicly-
funded legal assistance (“PFLA”) subject to an eligibility test administered
by the Duty Lawyer Service or Pilot Scheme Office for Provision of
Publicly-funded Legal Assistance for Non-refoulement Claimants (“Pilot
Scheme Office”). If the claimant demands for PFLA for making a
subsequent claim, the subsequent claim request will be referred to the Duty
Lawyer Service Office or Pilot Scheme Office as appropriate for handling
before the ImmD assesses the request.
Q4.The number of applications for subsequent claims received, determined,
withdrawn, accepted and rejected by the ImmD, disaggregated by year from
2014 to 2020.
A4. The Government implemented the USM in March 2014 to screen non-
refoulement claims on all applicable grounds in one go. As at the end of
December 2020, the number of subsequent claim requests is as follows:
Subsequent
Decision on subsequent claim requests
Withdrawn or
Year
claim requests
no further action
Allowed and
received
Rejected
can be taken
subsequent claim made
2014
31
26
3
1
(since March)
2015
33
19
8
0
2016
58
35
25
1
2017
41
18
27
0
2018
50
7
35
1
2019
116
44
26
10
2020
446
68
84
87
Total
775
217
208
100
We hope you would find the above information useful.
Best Regards,
(FUNG Man-him)
for Director of Immigration