Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dependency policy

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2019

RAI RAJENDRA KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1093/2018

Leave dismissed because applicant failed to show an arguable case: the Director's refusal was based on lack of genuine dependency established by contemporaneous internal minutes; applicant suffered no substantial prejudice from the public reasons; the Stepsons are now over 18 and fall outside the Dependant Policy; HKBOR/Basic Law claims excluded by s11/Comilang; application was out of time so no extension granted.
26 Sept 2014

LIMBU SANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LIMBU SANTI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL41/2014

The Director's decision was within the range of reasonable conclusions on the evidential material: doubts about genuine dependency were supported by inconsistent accounts and lack of corroborative evidence, there was no procedural unfairness in not expressly listing the three dependency elements because they are reasonably inferable, the humanitarian/discretionary ground did not require intervention, and the applicant's unexplained 15‑month delay did not justify extension of time; accordingly leave was refused.
31 Jul 2006

KHAN KAMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

KHAN KAMRAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL48/2005

The Director's refusal was lawful because, on the material before him, there was insufficient evidence to establish the requisite dependency (including compelling emotional dependence) or that the sponsor could financially maintain the applicant; the Director did not fail to take into account material considerations and the decision was within the bounds of reasonable discretion under a strict immigration policy.
24 Jan 2006

LAM KHIET PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LAM KHIET PHUNG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL9/2004

Applicant's marriage had terminated and she ceased to be dependent before accruing any entitlement to unconditional stay; Director lawfully exercised his wide discretion based on evidence (doubts about genuineness of marriage, applicant's Vietnamese family links, sponsor ineligibility) and any failure to inform or to state all adverse reasons did not cause real prejudice and did not render the decision unlawful.
2 Nov 2005

MURALI DURAISAMY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MURALI DURAISAMY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL152/2004

The Director's determinations — that the applicant was overage, not a genuine dependant and that there were no strong compassionate or humanitarian reasons or special extenuating circumstances to justify an exception — were not Wednesbury unreasonable on the material before the Director; the judicial review is dismissed and the Director's decisions are upheld.
5 Sept 2005

MARILYN G ARINGO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MARILYN G ARINGO AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2004

The Director's refusal was lawful and within discretion: the husband expressly indicated intentions to pursue business in Hong Kong and was not genuinely dependent; the Director reasonably doubted the sponsor's financial capacity following departmental investigations; the Director was not obliged to conduct the extensive independent inquiries the applicants sought; and the wife's constitutional protections could not be used to extend rights to the husband given s.11 of the Bill of Rights. The judicial review is dismissed.
24 Mar 2005

DIGENDRA BAHADUR SINJALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

DIGENDRA BAHADUR SINJALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2004

The Director did not act Wednesbury unreasonably in refusing further extension once the dependency relationship had ended and sponsorship withdrawn; the applicant's non‑disclosure of divorce and separation justified investigation and refusal; no exceptional humanitarian grounds were made out; the Chief Executive in Council lawfully upheld the decision; costs awarded to respondents.
16 Jul 2004

GHULAM FIZAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GHULAM FIZAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL63/2003

The Director had expressly considered whether the applicant constituted an exception to the dependency policy and there was no evidence he failed to take into account material matters; accordingly his refusal was not irrational and the court will not overturn the exercise of his discretion.
29 Jun 2004

SACDALAN CONRAD CHRIS ALVAREZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

SACDALAN CONRAD CHRIS ALVAREZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL91/2003

The court upheld the Director's decisions because the Senior Immigration Officer and Acting Chief Immigration Officer considered relevant and admissible materials, drew reasonable inferences about the applicant's primary intention and dependency, and their conclusions did not amount to Wednesbury unreasonableness; section 53(7) permits refusal of stay pending a petition and the ACIO considered appropriate factors.
19 Jun 2003

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL208/2002

Although one observation about the sponsor's long‑term intention to support was not properly founded, the Director's overall decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable because he was entitled to take into account the applicant's own statements of intending to seek work or start a business, his age, education and employability and to infer that genuine dependency was lacking; therefore the refusal to grant dependant status stands.