Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dependant visa policy

Legal area

Court

26 Mar 2026

WASEEM GHOUSIA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCA 460
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV660/2025

The Director's refusal to grant an extension of stay was not irrational; humanitarian/compassionate considerations are discretionary and were reasonably weighed; the Applicant's challenge to the dependant policy was outside the scope of her merits application and, in any event, the dependant policy has been upheld by the courts; the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard and procedural directions were properly served so the appeal is dismissed.
15 Aug 2025

WASEEM GHOUSIA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3524
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1348/2025

The Director's decisions to refuse and to maintain refusal of an extension of stay were within lawful discretion; there was no legal duty to grant stay on humanitarian grounds, the weight of the factors was for the Director, and the material did not establish irrationality or illegality that would justify judicial intervention; therefore the application for leave to apply for judicial review is not reasonably arguable and is dismissed.
17 Jul 2025

LILIK SUNARSIH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL669/2025

The Director's refusals were within the lawful scope of immigration policy and discretion: the applicant failed to meet the Dependant Policy eligibility (sponsorship ceased on spouse's death), failed to show illegality, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions, and compassionate/family factors did not give rise to a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospect of success; accordingly leave is dismissed.
19 Mar 2025

LIMBU NANDARAJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 951
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL526/2025

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because it was brought significantly out of time with no satisfactory explanation or justification for an extension of time, and because the application failed to identify any particularised public law grounds that were reasonably arguable and had a realistic prospect of success; additionally the Form 86 and affirmation did not comply with mandatory requirements.
26 Apr 2022

KANG DAVINDER KAUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1401/2018

The Director did not fetter his discretion and had properly invited and considered supporting material; the applicant failed to present the relevant cultural and personal evidence to the Director, the Director had no duty to investigate matters not raised, and the decision was not irrational or procedurally unfair; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is not arguable and is dismissed.
12 Nov 2020

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 34
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV415/2019

The Appeal Committee dismissed leave on the substantive issues: the Court of Appeal's construction in BI v Director of Immigration that the 'no known record' requirement operates as a necessary eligibility criterion and can encompass a wide range of adverse records within the context of Hong Kong's restrictive immigration policy is cogent and not reasonably arguable to the contrary; executive statements such as the Legco Brief are only contextual aids and require evidential foundation before being admitted; issues about passport evidence were fact sensitive and did not raise questions of gene…
12 Nov 2020

AH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 34
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV3/2020

The Court refused leave on the substantive issues because the Court of Appeal's reasoning that the 'no record' requirement was properly construed as set out in BI v Director of Immigration was cogent and not reasonably arguable to be wrong; executive statements such as the LegCo Brief do not alter the primacy of the Guidebook and cannot be treated as determinative absent proper evidence; factual issues (passport, trivial records) do not raise points of law of sufficient general importance.
12 Aug 2020

SAMBAHAMPHE, PRAKASH AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL429/2020

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.
23 Aug 2019

“AH” v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 952
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP196/2016

The application for extension of time was dismissed because the new arguments lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the Director lawfully construed and applied the No Record Criterion as an eligibility criterion that can include non‑criminal records (including repeated use of false travel documents and resulting convictions) and there was no public law error in treating the applicant's immigration and conviction history as a record of detriment.
19 Oct 2018

SS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL97/2016

The Director's refusal was quashed because it was Wednesbury unreasonable and procedurally unfair: the Director failed to take into account the relevant and material fact that the Father would leave India and the Sister would be left without family care, and the Director should have sought further information in the special circumstances before reaching the decision.