RIAZ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

RIAZ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Extension of time was refused because the short delay (under three weeks) was not satisfactorily explained and, critically, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the applicant misunderstood s20(1)(a) (a guilty plea can constitute being "found guilty") and the substantive complaints were merits...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2996
Parties
1st Applicant: RIAZ HUSSAIN; 2nd Applicant: WONG YUK LAN; Putative Respondent: Permanent Secretary for Security; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2020
Case Number
HCAL62/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Dismissal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
1st Applicant's summons for extension of time to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Interpretation of S20(1)(a) Immigration Ordinance, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Judicial Review Appeal Procedure Deportation Extension of Time to Appeal Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Interpretation of S20(1)(a) Immigration Ordinance +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

RIAZ HUSSAIN

1st Applicant

WONG YUK LAN

2nd Applicant

Permanent Secretary for Security

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Following Dismissal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether time for filing a notice of appeal should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether a plea of guilty constitutes being "found guilty" under s20(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time was refused because the short delay (under three weeks) was not satisfactorily explained and, critically, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the applicant misunderstood s20(1)(a) (a guilty plea can constitute being "found guilty") and the substantive complaints were merits issues already considered and rejected by the decision-maker, not grounds for judicial review.

Court Disposition

1st Applicant's summons for extension of time to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • 1st Applicant's summons dated 9 November 2020 dismissed
  • No order as to costs