COMILANG MILAGROS TECSON, also known as COMILANG MILAGROS T. AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND OTHERS

COMILANG MILAGROS TECSON, also known as COMILANG MILAGROS T. AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND OTHERS

Given the constitutional immigration reservations, the BORO s11 limitation and consistent Hong Kong authority, the applicants had no legal right to pre-empt immigration control or to a derivative right of residence based on the child's right of abode; the Director lawfully exercised discretionary refusal of extension of stay and the VEPIC claim failed on the facts and applicable law, therefore the judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
COMILANG MILAGROS TECSON, also known as COMILANG MILAGROS T. AND ANOTHER v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: COMILANG MILAGROS TECSON; 2nd Applicant (minor): AHMED ZAHRAH NOOR; 1st Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION; 2nd Respondent: REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL; 3rd Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Case Number
HCAL28/2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (decision on Merits)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Abode, Derivative Residence Rights, Dependant Visa Policy, Toleration Letters, Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion, Immigration Reservations, Child Custody Impact
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Family Law Human Rights Law Right of Abode Derivative Residence Rights Dependant Visa Policy +4 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 5 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COMILANG MILAGROS TECSON

1st Applicant

AHMED ZAHRAH NOOR

2nd Applicant (minor)

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

1st Respondent

REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

2nd Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Judgment (decision on Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Applicant was entitled to extension of stay or derivative right to reside based on her child who is a Hong Kong permanent resident
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Applicant could accumulate seven years ordinary residence for VEPIC given periods of FDH status, overstaying and toleration letters
  3. 3 Whether international conventions (ICCPR, CRC, ICESCR), the Basic Law or Bill of Rights create a reviewable right that pre-empts immigration control or creates a derivative right of residence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the constitutional immigration reservations, the BORO s11 limitation and consistent Hong Kong authority, the applicants had no legal right to pre-empt immigration control or to a derivative right of residence based on the child's right of abode; the Director lawfully exercised discretionary refusal of extension of stay and the VEPIC claim failed on the facts and applicable law, therefore the judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: Applicants to pay costs of the Commissioner of Registration and the Director of Immigration