20 Feb 2026
The Court found no error in the Leave Decision: the PS for S provided adequate reasons by way of Minute M.1, the applicant's family circumstances were considered and any balancing of humanitarian factors falls within executive discretion, and therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
30 Dec 2024
The detention is lawful because the Director is actively pursuing removal, the principal practical impediment to removal is the applicant's refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (a delay attributable to him), and the risks of absconding and reoffending together with the limited weight of family circumstances do not render the detention unreasonable for the period and foreseeable future.
21 May 2019
The appeal fails because the applicant did not disclose any grounds for judicial review at the leave stage and impermissibly sought to introduce new substantive grounds on appeal outside the time limit; even if those grounds were considered they lack merit because the immigration exception circumscribes the claimed family and human rights and the Secretary had afforded consideration to family circumstances and was not obliged to treat humanitarian considerations as decisive.
10 May 2019
Leave under Section 14AA was refused because the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable on its merits (applicants could not properly challenge the Director’s application of the NRD Requirement or show Wednesbury unreasonableness) and the substantive application suffered unacceptable delay; accordingly the appeal was incompetent and struck out.
24 Jul 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the questions advanced were either not of great general or public importance or not reasonably arguable: several were precluded by binding precedent (including the effect of s11 Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the dualist principle), some were legally unarguable (eg expansive construction of BL37), and many raised fact-sensitive issues not suitable for determination as matters of general importance.
26 Mar 2018
Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance as constitutionalised by Basic Law article 39 excludes reliance on BOR/ICCPR/CRC/ICESCR in respect of immigration legislation governing entry, stay and departure; Basic Law article 37 does not confer a general right to secure residence for non-residents nor allow resident family members to override immigration controls; the Dependant Policy is dependency-based with financial sufficiency eligibility criteria properly applied; the Director did not unlawfully fetter discretion or fail to consider relevant matters; appeals dismissed.
26 Mar 2018
Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (as given constitutional status by Basic Law art 39) and relevant Court of Final Appeal authority exclude reliance by non-residents on BOR/ICCPR protections in immigration contexts and prevent residents from invoking those rights to benefit non-resident family members; Basic Law art 37 does not confer a general family right applicable to override immigration policy; unincorporated treaties (ICESCR/CRC) do not create domestic enforceable rights here; accordingly the Director was not legally obliged to treat the asserted rights as applicable…
26 Mar 2018
Section 11 HKBORO as entrenched by Basic Law art 39 prevents non‑residents from invoking family rights under the Bill of Rights/ICCPR in immigration contexts and the same logic precludes residents invoking Basic Law family rights to circumvent immigration controls; Article 37 does not confer a general family‑life right that compels the Director to grant stay, its scope is limited, international economic/social covenants not domesticated do not create enforceable immigration entitlements, the Dependant Policy and Para 5C are lawful eligibility criteria and the court will not overturn the Direc…
26 Oct 2017
The Permanent Secretary lawfully refused to rescind the deportation order because he legitimately exercised his wide discretion after considering relevant material; he was under no legal duty to give detailed reasons to a person without the right to remain; family rights and the CRC do not oblige rescission for persons without right to remain; there was no procedural unfairness, irrationality or arguable discrimination, and consequently no basis to grant extension of time or leave to apply for judicial review.
9 May 2017
The Permanent Secretary lawfully exercised his delegated discretion; the applicants' proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable because family and other representations were considered, no procedural unfairness occurred, an outstanding non‑refoulement claim was not material to rescind the deportation order, no Wednesbury unreasonableness was shown and no evidence of discriminatory practice was established; accordingly extension of time, leave to amend and leave for judicial review were refused and the substantive application dismissed.