NISA AZIZAN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

NISA AZIZAN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The applications are dismissed because the grounds for judicial review of the Director's decisions arose in 2012 (and the Secretary's decision in 2014), the leave application filed in October 2015 was out of time, the applicants failed to provide a good reason to extend time under Order 53 r 4(1) and s21K(6), and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable on the merits (no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness).

Citation
NISA AZIZAN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant: Nisa Azizan; 2nd Applicant: Hameed Abdul; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 April 2016
Case Number
HCAL203/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time (judgment on Rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Procedural Fairness, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Immigration Discretion
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nisa Azizan

1st Applicant

Hameed Abdul

2nd Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional and Administrative Law) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time (judgment on Rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave was brought promptly and within three months under Order 53 r 4(1)
  2. 2 Whether delay could be excused and extension of time granted under s21K(6) High Court Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the Director and Secretary failed to make sufficient inquiries into non-refoulement and employment claims

Ratio Decidendi

The applications are dismissed because the grounds for judicial review of the Director's decisions arose in 2012 (and the Secretary's decision in 2014), the leave application filed in October 2015 was out of time, the applicants failed to provide a good reason to extend time under Order 53 r 4(1) and s21K(6), and the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable on the merits (no procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness).

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time and for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Applicants' application for extension of time to apply for leave dismissed
  • Applicants' application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary's Decision and the Director's Decision dismissed