25 Oct 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the court found the questions either already answered by application of the existing dependant visa policy or not reasonably arguable as matters of general importance; the court will not formulate immigration policy in place of the Director and the specific factual challenge to the Director's application of policy did not raise a point of general public importance.
18 Nov 2015
There was no good reason to extend time for the out-of-time leave application: the delay (about 19 months) was excessive, the legal aid process did not justify extension overall (though delay in assignment of senior counsel was neutral), and it was highly likely the Director would reject the dependant visa again on known facts (applicant's adverse criminal/dishonesty record and established immigration policy); accordingly extension and leave were refused and no costs order made.
5 May 2015
The court refused the discovery and cross-examination applications because the material sought was not necessary for resolution of the critical issues pleaded in the Amended Form 86, the application was overly broad and speculative, and it was unreasonably delayed; consequently leave to cross-examine was also refused.
14 Sept 2010
The Director did not unlawfully fetter his discretion in applying a lawful dependent policy which limits parents to aged 60 or above except in exceptional humanitarian/compassionate cases; the Hong Kong Bill of Rights cannot be invoked to affect immigration legislation under s.11 and Article 37 of the Basic Law, read with the Chinese text, does not engage to require admission of an adult parent in these circumstances; the Director's conclusion that no exceptional grounds existed was not Wednesbury‑unreasonable. Therefore the judicial review application fails.