SO TSZ MAN, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, NURHAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

SO TSZ MAN, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, NURHAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

The Director’s refusal was not Wednesbury unreasonable: the Memorandum and Decision show the Director considered the humanitarian and other material representations, reasonably concluded that exceptional grounds were not made out, and did not err in law in the treatment of Article 3 or common law arguments because the Applicant is a Hong Kong permanent resident who could remain in Hong Kong and any hardship from relocation to Indonesia would result from a voluntary choice rather than state action; accordingly both grounds of review fail and the application is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 5815
Parties
Applicant (minor): So Tsz Man; Next Friend / Mother: Nurhayati; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL2549/2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Rolled‑up Hearing and Final Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Dependant Visa, Humanitarian and Compassionate Discretion, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Article 3 BOR — Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Best Interests of the Child, Immigration Policy and Outside‑policy Exceptions
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Dependant Visa Humanitarian and Compassionate Discretion Wednesbury Unreasonableness Article 3 BOR — Inhuman or Degrading Treatment +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

So Tsz Man

Applicant (minor)

Nurhayati

Next Friend / Mother

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Rolled‑up Hearing and Final Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's refusal of a dependant visa was Wednesbury unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Director failed to consider consequences of the refusal on the HKPR child including continuity of medical care
  3. 3 Whether Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) was engaged and required a positive exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Director’s refusal was not Wednesbury unreasonable: the Memorandum and Decision show the Director considered the humanitarian and other material representations, reasonably concluded that exceptional grounds were not made out, and did not err in law in the treatment of Article 3 or common law arguments because the Applicant is a Hong Kong permanent resident who could remain in Hong Kong and any hardship from relocation to Indonesia would result from a voluntary choice rather than state action; accordingly both grounds of review fail and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Applicant to pay the Director of Immigration’s costs; costs to be taxed if not agreed
  • Applicant’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with legal aid regulations