Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sponsor financial capacity

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2004

SHAWNAVASUDEEN MUSAHUDDEEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHAWNAVASUDEEN MUSAHUDDEEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1727/2000

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.
19 Feb 2003

CHRISTIAN BULAO PALMIS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHRISTIAN BULAO PALMIS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2104/2001

The Director's dependency policy is lawful and requires that an applicant must not have as a primary or principal purpose the intention to take up employment; on the facts the applicant had expressly intended to work and form an equal partnership, the Director's refusals were within his discretionary policy and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and any mistaken inference from the criminal record certificate did not vitiate the final decision because dependency and purpose-based reasoning independently supported refusal.
13 May 2002

GURUNG BHAKTA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

GURUNG BHAKTA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1579/2000

The Director of Immigration lawfully formulates and applies dependency immigration policy; there was no evidence the Chief Executive in Council had laid down detailed conflicting policy; the Director's assessment that the sponsor lacked sufficient independent means and that the applicant was not a genuine dependant was rational and not Wednesbury-perverse; the application for discovery and cross-examination was rightly refused and the judicial review is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SHAWNAVASUDEEN MUSAHUDDEEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

CHRISTIAN BULAO PALMIS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

GURUNG BHAKTA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER