26 Aug 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the family reunion ground was unparticularised and not advanced below and thus cannot be expanded on appeal, and fresh documents were inadmissible without leave and explanation; the application is not reasonably arguable.
25 Jul 2012
The court refused leave for judicial review and refused the habeas corpus application because the applicant failed to establish a demonstrable arguable case that deportation would expose him to a real and unavoidable risk of torture or death; the CAT assessment and the Director's consideration of state protection and relocation were lawful and the applicant's credibility was undermined, thus detention pending deportation is lawful.
25 Jul 2012
The court found no demonstrably arguable case because the CAT screening and the deportation decisions reasonably assessed the threats, credibility concerns undermined the applicant's account, and there was a realistic prospect of state protection or relocation in Pakistan; given the immigration reservation and binding authorities on family reunion claims, the deportation order and detention pending deportation were lawful.
31 Jul 2006
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.
16 Jul 2004
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.
13 Jun 2003
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.
18 Jan 2000
Leave refused because the income‑based approach to dependant visas is objectively justifiable within immigration policy; Article 39 and s.11 Bill of Rights preserve immigration regulation; the Director had evidential basis and lawful wide discretion in fact-finding and did not act perversely or unlawfully.