BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The Director lawfully exercised his statutory discretion in rejecting the applicants' change of status because the dependency and adequate financial support requirements were not satisfied, the decision was neither unreasonable nor illogical, and the applicants failed to establish an arguable case of bad faith or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Citation
BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: Baldev Singh; 2nd Applicant: Jasbir Kaur; 3rd Applicant: Balbir Singh; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2000
Case Number
HCAL149/1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed at First Instance
Outcome
Applications for leave for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Dependant Visa, Immigration Status Change, Judicial Review Leave, Natural Justice, Discretion of Administrative Decision Maker
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedural Law Dependant Visa Immigration Status Change Judicial Review Leave Natural Justice +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baldev Singh

1st Applicant

Jasbir Kaur

2nd Applicant

Balbir Singh

3rd Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Dismissed at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Immigration acted unreasonably or irrationally in refusing change of immigration status to dependants
  2. 2 Whether applicants were denied procedural fairness or natural justice by lack of particulars and hearing
  3. 3 Whether applicants had a legitimate expectation of being granted right to reside as dependants

Ratio Decidendi

The Director lawfully exercised his statutory discretion in rejecting the applicants' change of status because the dependency and adequate financial support requirements were not satisfied, the decision was neither unreasonable nor illogical, and the applicants failed to establish an arguable case of bad faith or procedural unfairness warranting judicial intervention; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Applications for leave for judicial review dismissed