Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discretion of director of immigration

Legal area

Court

2 Jul 2014

GA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2013

The Court made the order nisi absolute and ordered no order as to costs because the IDT point was a legitimate and important issue that had to be considered by the Court, could have required further fact-finding that might have produced success for the Applicants, and therefore it was not appropriate simply to apply the ordinary rule that costs follow the event where the appeals were dismissed.
2 Jul 2014

PA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

PA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2013

The court made the order nisi absolute and ordered no order as to costs because the applicants were justified in raising the IDT issue (an important question that had to be decided), and because the academic nature of the appeals meant it was inappropriate simply to adopt the 'costs follow the event' approach.
2 Jul 2014

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2013

Because the IDT issue was a substantive legal point that had to be decided by the Court and could have led to further fact‑finding and eventual success by the Applicants, it was inappropriate to apply the ordinary 'costs follow the event' rule; accordingly the order nisi (that there should be no order as to costs) was made absolute.
18 Feb 2014

PA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

PA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2013

Section 11 of the HKBORO precludes reliance on Article 14 BOR in respect of immigration legislation governing entry, stay and departure; Article 6 ICESCR has not been incorporated into domestic law in a way that affords Applicants the asserted general right to work and in any event is subject to the UK reservation permitting restrictions; Article 33 Basic Law guarantees freedom of choice of occupation not a general right to take up employment for non‑residents; no common law right to work was established; therefore no constitutional right to work arose and proportionality did not apply. Howev…
18 Feb 2014

GA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2013

HKBORO s.11, read in context with the UK reservations and Basic Law art.39, excludes reliance on BOR art.14 and ICESCR art.6 by persons who do not have the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong; Article 33 BL does not create a general right to work; no common law right to work was established; appeals dismissed. However BOR art.3 (no torture/IDT) remains non-derogable and where a substantial and imminent risk of IDT is shown the DOI must exercise his discretion to permit employment.
21 Jul 2011

BF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

BF v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV136/2008

Court held that the concept of non-refoulement of refugees has developed into customary international law but has not attained jus cogens; Hong Kong was not found to be a persistent objector but domestic legislation (Immigration Ordinance Cap.115 and legislative history) manifests a clear intent leaving the Director an unfettered discretion to remove persons, thereby overriding any customary international obligation in domestic law; consequently the Director is not legally obliged to undertake refugee status determination personally and reliance on UNHCR procedures is lawful; appeal dismissed.
13 Jun 2003

QAMAR ZAMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

QAMAR ZAMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL145/2002

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.
25 Mar 2002

LAI YAU CHIK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAI YAU CHIK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2029/2001

The clearance endorsement of 26 May 1979 amounted only to sufferance pending processing and investigation and did not constitute authority under s13/s2(4) of the Immigration Ordinance; authority was first given in early July 1979 (reflected by the Entry Permit), so ordinary residence for the father could not be said to have commenced on 26 May 1979; appeal dismissed.
28 Jan 2000

MASTER ZHANG CHAOJIE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MASTER ZHANG CHAOJIE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL5/2000

Leave for judicial review was refused to the mother because she had no independent right to quash the Director's decision, but leave was granted to the child because the low threshold for leave was met: key matters — including the circumstances of the mother's grant of residence, potential impact of international covenants and the Basic Law interpretation — required further exploration and disclosure from the Director.
8 Apr 1994

HAI HO TAK v. Attorney General

Citation

HAI HO TAK v. Attorney General
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/1993

Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance must be given its plain meaning: it prevents the Bill from affecting immigration legislation governing persons without the right to enter or remain or the application of such legislation; consequently close family members cannot invoke the Bill to challenge Director of Immigration removal decisions in the circumstances of these appeals; appeals dismissed.