10 May 2019
Leave under Section 14AA was refused because the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable on its merits (applicants could not properly challenge the Director’s application of the NRD Requirement or show Wednesbury unreasonableness) and the substantive application suffered unacceptable delay; accordingly the appeal was incompetent and struck out.
5 Sept 2005
The Director's refusal was lawful and within discretion: the husband expressly indicated intentions to pursue business in Hong Kong and was not genuinely dependent; the Director reasonably doubted the sponsor's financial capacity following departmental investigations; the Director was not obliged to conduct the extensive independent inquiries the applicants sought; and the wife's constitutional protections could not be used to extend rights to the husband given s.11 of the Bill of Rights. The judicial review is dismissed.
1 Sept 2005
The court held the applicant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Director's decision was so unreasonable or perverse as to fall outside the broad discretion conferred; material inconsistencies and collateral investigations provided lawful basis for refusal, so the decision was lawful and the judicial review application was refused.
13 Oct 2004
On the evidence before the Director and the Chief Executive in Council the applicant did not satisfy the dependency policy because his own written statements and his father's letter showed a primary purpose of seeking work/career; the decision-makers acted within their discretionary bounds, there was no material failure to take into account relevant factors that vitiated the decision, no procedural unfairness established by the allegation of oppressive conduct, and the judicial review application was therefore dismissed.
12 Jul 2004
The Director's conclusion that the first applicant did not genuinely intend to reside in Hong Kong as a dependant but rather to seek employment was a rational inference from the primary facts, the applicant bore the burden to prove genuine dependant intent and failed to do so, and the single lodged application was a joint one so both applicants failed.
13 Jun 2003
The Director's refusal was lawful and not irrational or perverse because the sponsor's claimed regular income and savings were undermined by fundamental, unresolved factual conflicts and the applicant failed to discharge the evidential burden to establish genuine dependency and adequate support.
22 Jan 2002
The Director's detailed factual assessment that the applicants were not genuine dependants and that the sponsor lacked sufficient means was neither perverse nor irrational; given the wide discretion accorded to the Director in immigration dependency cases and the limited scope of judicial review, the applicants failed to show an arguable case for relief and leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
3 Apr 2000
The Director's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable on the material before him: it was rational to conclude the applicant's declared intention to seek work made his primary purpose not to be a dependant; the alleged factual errors were either unsupported, immaterial or did not undermine the decision; accordingly the judicial review is refused.