Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dependant visa

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2026

SUBBA JANUKA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2628/2025

The application for leave is dismissed because the Director's approach to the Financial Capability Requirement was a legally available and reasonably open approach on the evidence (low savings, significant outstanding loans, suspected non‑genuine part‑time income), the applicant failed to show a public law error or procedural unfairness, humanitarian grounds do not give rise to a public law ground of review, and a further reconsideration request constituted an available alternative remedy making judicial review unnecessary.
8 Apr 2026

MISHRA RUDRESH KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1231
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1450/2021

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant had been granted lawful stay in Hong Kong by a dependant visa, rendering a challenge to the Board's decision academic and removing the need for non-refoulement protection.
30 Mar 2026

SHAHZAD ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL608/2026

The court dismissed the application for leave because the applicant's complaints amounted to disagreement with the Director's exercise of discretion, did not disclose any reasonably arguable public law error or procedural unfairness, the Director legitimately found no strong extenuating grounds, and there was significant doubt the proceeding was timeous.
2 Dec 2025

SO TSZ MAN, A MINOR, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, NURHAYATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2549/2024

The Director’s refusal was not Wednesbury unreasonable: the Memorandum and Decision show the Director considered the humanitarian and other material representations, reasonably concluded that exceptional grounds were not made out, and did not err in law in the treatment of Article 3 or common law arguments because the Applicant is a Hong Kong permanent resident who could remain in Hong Kong and any hardship from relocation to Indonesia would result from a voluntary choice rather than state action; accordingly both grounds of review fail and the application is dismissed.
20 Nov 2025

TAMANG SUDHA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2457/2025

Refusal to grant leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success; the Decision contained concrete reasons (the sponsor's insufficient financial capacity) and the dependant visa policy does not create a right to live with a spouse.
16 Sept 2025

GURUNG RAM BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2367
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1223/2025

Leave dismissed because the Director lawfully exercised discretion: the Applicant failed to meet the Dependant Policy or show exceptional humanitarian grounds, the Director had considered the representations and evidence, gave lawful weight to the absence of a strong connection with the child and interim care being granted to the mother, and the decisions were not irrational or unlawful.
28 Mar 2025

AHMED NOOR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1077
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL107/2025

There was no reasonably arguable procedural unfairness in the Director's non‑disclosure because the Applicant personally knew the essential allegation (from the 2006 interview and subsequent correspondence), the materials provided were adequate for the purposes of the NRD assessment, further disclosure would not have produced substantive prejudice, and the long unexplained delay militated against granting an extension of time or leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly leave is refused and no relief granted.
13 Jan 2025

THAPA KHIMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2653/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success, failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements in Form 86 and the affirmation, the proposed challenge was essentially a merits challenge or out of time, and there was no arguable Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's Reconsideration Decision.
8 Jan 2025

MR. AHMED SHAH v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 216
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2666/2024

The application for leave was dismissed because it was brought well outside the statutory/ordinary three‑month time limit with no application or basis for an extension, the materials failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground (being primarily factual challenges to the Director's assessment), and there was no basis to conclude the Director's decisions involved illegality, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury‑level unreasonableness.
5 Dec 2024

YOLMO DEECHEN LAMU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3438
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1287/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground with a realistic prospect of success: the Director disclosed the relevant information and invited representations, acted on probative evidence (including a Mainland marriage certificate) to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the marriage was bigamous and void, did not take irrelevant considerations such as silence into account, legitimate expectation did not apply, and delay was unjustified. The decision fell within the Director's lawful discretion and…