BHUPENDRA PUN AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

BHUPENDRA PUN AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The Director's detailed factual assessment that the applicants were not genuine dependants and that the sponsor lacked sufficient means was neither perverse nor irrational; given the wide discretion accorded to the Director in immigration dependency cases and the limited scope of judicial review, the applicants failed to show an arguable case for relief and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Citation
BHUPENDRA PUN AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: Bhupendra Pun; 2nd Applicant: Nandaram Pun; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Chief Executive in Council
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2002
Case Number
HCAL1541/2001
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review — Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Both applications for leave to apply for judicial review are dismissed
Legal Topics
Dependency Visa, Sponsorship Financial Requirement, Reasonableness Review, Policy Deference
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Dependency Visa Sponsorship Financial Requirement Reasonableness Review Policy Deference

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhupendra Pun

1st Applicant

Nandaram Pun

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Chief Executive in Council

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review — Decision on Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director's refusal to grant dependency visas was unreasonable or perverse
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were genuine dependants under the Director's policy (children under 21)
  3. 3 Whether the sponsor had sufficient means to maintain dependants to the required standard

Ratio Decidendi

The Director's detailed factual assessment that the applicants were not genuine dependants and that the sponsor lacked sufficient means was neither perverse nor irrational; given the wide discretion accorded to the Director in immigration dependency cases and the limited scope of judicial review, the applicants failed to show an arguable case for relief and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.

Court Disposition

Both applications for leave to apply for judicial review are dismissed

Orders

  • Both applications for leave to apply for judicial review are dismissed.
  • There will be no order for costs.