WONG UN YING AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

WONG UN YING AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The court held that a legitimate expectation arose that the Director would consider the applicants' humanitarian and compassionate representations, but on the evidence the Director had in fact considered those representations and was not acting in bad faith; the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain humanitarian grounds on appeal; accordingly there was no basis to quash the decisions and the judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
WONG UN YING AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (1st Applicant): Wong Ying; Applicant (2nd Applicant): Wong Ching; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Immigration Tribunal
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2010
Case Number
HCAL136/2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Removal Order, Legitimate Expectation, Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds, Duty to Give Reasons, Invalidation of Identity Card
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Public Law Judicial Review Removal Order Legitimate Expectation Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Duty to Give Reasons +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Ying

Applicant (1st Applicant)

Wong Ching

Applicant (2nd Applicant)

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Immigration Tribunal

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a legitimate expectation arose that the Director would consider humanitarian and compassionate representations
  2. 2 Whether the Director failed to consider those representations or acted in bad faith
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal was obliged to consider humanitarian/compassionate grounds or give reasons on them

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a legitimate expectation arose that the Director would consider the applicants' humanitarian and compassionate representations, but on the evidence the Director had in fact considered those representations and was not acting in bad faith; the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain humanitarian grounds on appeal; accordingly there was no basis to quash the decisions and the judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants to pay the Director's costs, to be taxed if not agreed
  • No order between the applicants and the Tribunal