GURUNG BIKASH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

GURUNG BIKASH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the Director lawfully exercised his wide discretion under the Dependant Policy in refusing an extension of stay where the applicant lacked an eligible sponsor and there were no extenuating grounds; the Chief Executive in Council lawfully confirmed that decision under s 53 and the absence of further reasons caused no material prejudice; allegations of irrationality, fettering, procedural unfairness, bias or discrimination were unsupported and the challenge did not meet the high threshold required.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 171
Parties
Applicant: Gurung Bikash Kumar; 1st Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Putative Respondent: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2021
Case Number
HCAL1042/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Stay, Dependant Policy, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Fettering of Discretion, Irrationality, Natural Justice
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Extension of Stay Dependant Policy Judicial Review Procedural Fairness Fettering of Discretion +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurung Bikash Kumar

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Putative Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director unlawfully fettered discretion or acted irrationally in refusing extension of stay
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness or natural justice was breached in the decision‑making process
  3. 3 Whether the Chief Executive in Council was required to give reasons when confirming the Director's decision under s 53

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the Director lawfully exercised his wide discretion under the Dependant Policy in refusing an extension of stay where the applicant lacked an eligible sponsor and there were no extenuating grounds; the Chief Executive in Council lawfully confirmed that decision under s 53 and the absence of further reasons caused no material prejudice; allegations of irrationality, fettering, procedural unfairness, bias or discrimination were unsupported and the challenge did not meet the high threshold required.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave dismissed
  • No order as to costs