Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No known record requirement

Legal area

Court

29 Dec 2021

MUNATSI KINGSLEY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1981
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV405/2020

The Court dismissed the appeal: it was open and reasonable for the Director to find the applicant failed the No Known Record Requirement given his prolonged overstay and conviction; the Director had no legal duty to consider humanitarian/compassionate grounds and, even if considered, weight was for the Director; the applicant could not rely in judicial review on evidence not before the Director; the applicant’s allegations of disparate treatment and delay were unsubstantiated. The Judge’s refusal of leave was therefore correct and is affirmed.
8 Dec 2020

MUDASSAR IJAZ alias MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3017
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1796/2020

The Director lawfully refused the dependant visa because the applicant failed to meet the established eligibility criteria (including the No Known Record Requirement); the applicant's public law grounds were general, not reasonably arguable and lacked a realistic prospect of success, so leave was dismissed.
12 Nov 2020

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 34
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV415/2019

The Appeal Committee dismissed leave on the substantive issues: the Court of Appeal's construction in BI v Director of Immigration that the 'no known record' requirement operates as a necessary eligibility criterion and can encompass a wide range of adverse records within the context of Hong Kong's restrictive immigration policy is cogent and not reasonably arguable to the contrary; executive statements such as the Legco Brief are only contextual aids and require evidential foundation before being admitted; issues about passport evidence were fact sensitive and did not raise questions of gene…
3 Nov 2016

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL172/2015

The Director lawfully interpreted the No Record Requirement to include adverse immigration or security records beyond convictions; the officers rationally concluded the applicant had a detrimental record (use of a false travel document and inconsistent identity evidence) and that there were no overwhelming humanitarian grounds; the proposed judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success; given the long unexplained delay and lack of merits, extension of time was refused and leave dismissed.
20 Jul 2015

TH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL114/2014

Leave was set aside because applicants breached the duty of full and frank disclosure in the ex parte leave application by misstating the reasons for delay and failing to disclose that key documents were already available to prior solicitors; notwithstanding that the Director misconstrued the Policy, the court exercised its discretion to set aside leave because a realistic and high likelihood existed that the Director would reject the dependant visa on remittal, so the procedural breach could not be excused.

Hong Kong Case Law

MUNATSI KINGSLEY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

MUDASSAR IJAZ alias MUHAMMAD AFZAL v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

H v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

TH AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION