22 Mar 2023
The application for leave was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the Director lawfully exercised a broad discretion in assessing dependency, the 2nd decision was a substantive, timely decision, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate error of law or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial review.
29 Dec 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant had obtained a dependent visa, removing the relevant detriment and rendering the remedy otiose, so granting leave would serve no practical purpose.
15 Oct 2021
Because the applicant was not covered by any prevailing immigration policy and the Director reasonably concluded there were no strong extenuating circumstances warranting exceptional consideration, the refusal to extend her stay was not Wednesbury-unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
7 Jul 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not raise any question of great, general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) CFAO, the humanitarian grounds were factual matters without an arguable point of law or public importance, and there was no basis under the residual 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
18 Oct 2012
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Director's decision that parentage and genuine dependency were not established was within the range of reasonable responses (not unlawful, irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable), the applicant failed to show an arguable public law ground, the request to allow DNA testing in Hong Kong was unnecessary and unreasonable, and an alternative remedy (pending petition to the Chief Executive) remained available.
25 Nov 2011
The applicant's detention was lawful because it was authorised by a valid removal order and the applicant did not challenge its legality; habeas corpus cannot be used to review administrative decisions about arrangements for an interview; because the Director offered alternative arrangements and an undertaking to arrange the interview, no habeas corpus relief or leave for judicial review was required.
4 Dec 2006
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the respondent's refusal of the dependent visa extension was not irrational, the applicant had been divorced and sponsorship withdrawn, and the old policy of unconditional stay after three years was no longer in force.
29 Dec 2005
Because the applicant lacked a viable sponsor at the relevant times (including on 23 June 2003 and December 2003), she could not meet the prerequisite for unconditional stay under the old policy; the June 2003 rejection was valid meaning the December decision related to a later application, the proposed late amendment was out of time, bound to fail and therefore refused, and the judicial review dismissed.
12 Jan 2001
The Director's refusal was lawful and within policy: the Director gave adequate reasons, properly confined assessment to the sponsor's own ability to support and provide accommodation, and the decision was not irrational nor based on a mistake of material fact; therefore applications are refused.
27 Jul 2000
The court held the Respondents' decisions were not Wednesbury‑unreasonable and did not breach natural justice: the refusal letters contained adequate reasons, the Respondents considered relevant factors including alleged material changes and compassionate grounds, and an alien in the applicant's position had no entitlement to a hearing; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.