25 Sept 2024
All six applications were dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an impugned decision and any reasonably arguable public law ground, the challenges amounted to collateral attacks on concluded appeals and an abuse of process, and there was no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought; a Restrictive Proceedings Order to curb further abusive litigation is appropriate.
12 Aug 2020
The Director lawfully refused the extension of stay because the sponsor's divorce constituted a material change that ended the step-parent/step-children relationship making the applicants ineligible under the Dependant Policy; applying the established policy was not unlawful fettering, the reasons given were adequate, delay caused no demonstrable prejudice, no basic law right or unlawful discrimination was shown, and the decision was not irrational.
7 Nov 2018
The Court of Final Appeal (Leave) panel held that two specific questions—(1) whether the Director must take into account the parent-and-child family's enjoyment of applicable fundamental rights when a foreign national parent applies to remain to care for a HKSAR permanent resident child, and (2) whether s11 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance exempts immigration authorities from taking into account Basic Law rights of the child in such decisions—are matters of great general or public importance; accordingly leave to appeal was granted confined to those questions and the appeal was set down for he…
27 Jul 2016
The application was interlocutory and therefore properly determined on written submissions under Order 59 Rule 14A; the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor to demonstrate exceptional circumstances under s.22 of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the motion dismissed.
23 Sept 2009
The Director's refusal was lawful because the applicant did not meet the clear age threshold in the dependent residence policy; constitutional and Bill of Rights arguments could not be relied upon by a non-resident to override the immigration policy and the procedural joinder of the sponsor did not extend those rights; there was no Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's decision and courts will not substitute their view for immigration policy decisions.