Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dependants visa policy

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2026

RANA NARENDRA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF HONG KONG IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 264
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL51/2026

The leave application was refused because it was out of time in relation to the primary 22.5.2025 refusal and, on the merits, the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error: the Director acted within policy discretion, humanitarian considerations are not legally mandatory and their weight is for the Director, and the applicant did not demonstrate that the decision was irrational or without realistic prospect of success.
18 Jan 2000

SANTOSH THEWE v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

SANTOSH THEWE v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL134/1999

Leave was refused because the income‑based assessment of a sponsor's capacity to support a dependant is an objectively justified immigration policy permissible under Basic Law Article 39 and preserved by Bill of Rights Ordinance s.11; the Director had evidence to support his factual conclusions and acted within his wide discretionary power, so no arguable case was shown.
15 Jun 1999

GURUNG BIL BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GURUNG BIL BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL34/1999

The court refused the discovery application because the respondent's affirmation provided sufficient reasons and factual material to enable the court to determine whether there had been failure to take relevant considerations, consideration of irrelevant matters, irrationality, or erroneous application of policy; further discovery was unnecessary for the fair disposal of the application and would amount to a fishing expedition.

Hong Kong Case Law

RANA NARENDRA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF HONG KONG IMMIGRATION

SANTOSH THEWE v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

GURUNG BIL BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION