Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Verification of eligibility for permanent identity card (vepic)

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2025

SAEED UR REHMAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1932/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because there were no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Deportation Order was lawfully made under s20(1)(a) Immigration Ordinance, the applicant was given opportunity to make representations which were considered, family hardship did not render the decision unlawful or Wednesbury-unreasonable, and the outstanding ROPT appeal did not bar removal.
26 Aug 2019

SHOVE SHERPA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2019] HKCA 947
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV221/2018

The Court held that BL24(2) is an exhaustive list of categories of Hong Kong permanent residents and BL24(1) does not authorize expanding that list; accordingly the Director's VEPIC decision was lawful and, alternatively, the applicant's challenge was barred by substantial delay.
21 Sept 2018

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCA 618
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV286/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the issues central to the plaintiff's civil claims had been finally determined against him in prior judicial review proceedings and are therefore barred by issue estoppel and/or amount to an abuse of process; the Removal Order was lawfully made under section 19(1)(b)(ii) Cap 115 and no exceptional circumstances exist to permit relitigation.
6 Jun 2013

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2012

The proposed new grounds failed the realistic prospects threshold: the 13‑day period of imprisonment before 29 March 2005 was part of a punitive sentence and broke the continuity required for seven years’ ordinary residence so de minimis could not be invoked; Schedule 1 para 3(2) IO is constitutionally valid under Prem Singh as requiring verification before rights are enjoyed; no material relevant consideration regarding the wife’s circumstances was omitted. Therefore leave to amend and leave for judicial review were refused and the appeal dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

SAEED UR REHMAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

SHOVE SHERPA v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

NOWODZELSKI, STACEY ALAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION & ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER