Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Immigration policy

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2024

GAO JIE ACTING BY HER NEXT FRIEND QU MINGPENG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL817/2019

The court held that read together the CIES Scheme Rules, Immigration Guidelines and s.2 of the Immigration Ordinance legitimately require a valid travel document with adequate returnability for extension of stay; the Director was entitled to rely on official confirmations from PRC and foreign authorities, the Applicant failed to prove validity of the passports relied upon, and the Four Decisions and Removal Order were lawful and reasonable; leave was granted but substantive relief was refused.
15 Oct 2021

SIHMIATI ARIS SETYOWATI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL953/2021

Because the applicant was not covered by any prevailing immigration policy and the Director reasonably concluded there were no strong extenuating circumstances warranting exceptional consideration, the refusal to extend her stay was not Wednesbury-unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.
9 Jan 2020

GURUNG PRATIMAYA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1862/2018

The refusal was upheld because on the material before the Director there was a rational basis to find no genuine physical, emotional or financial dependency and no extenuating compassionate grounds; given the wide discretionary field and the Director's expertise, the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and leave to apply for judicial review was therefore dismissed.
14 Feb 2018

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 331
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL210/2016

The Live‑In Requirement is lawful and sustainable: it is either a permissible condition of stay or lawfully implemented by contractual undertakings and eligibility criteria; the Applicant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the requirement unacceptably or significantly increases the risk of servitude, forced labour or denial of statutory rest days; the requirement is not discriminatory because FDHs admitted under the FDH Scheme are not in analogous positions to SL Scheme workers; and the Director has not irrationally fettered his discretion. Accordingly the judicial review is…
27 Jan 2017

SABIR MOHAMMED AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

SABIR MOHAMMED AND ANOTHER v. PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL114/2015

The Permanent Secretary lawfully and rationally exercised his discretion to refuse rescission of the life deportation order; taking account of immigration policy and applying an exceptionality threshold was within lawful discretion and not Wednesbury unreasonable, the asserted family/child rights did not impose a legal obligation to rescind the order, procedural fairness complaints failed, and the leave grant was not set aside despite delay given the applicants' circumstances.
11 Mar 2016

QT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

QT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL124/2014

Given the context of immigration control and the legitimate aim of striking a balance between attracting skilled workers and controlling population and resources, the Director was entitled to adopt a bright‑line rule based on marital status as defined by Hong Kong law; 'spouse' in the Policy means a party to a marriage lawfully recognised in Hong Kong (heterosexual and monogamous) and the Decision refusing the applicant a dependant visa was not discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation; judicial review dismissed.
18 Apr 2011

CH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV59/2010

The Director's policies (refusing to investigate Art.3 claims while claimants remain lawfully on short visas and refusing extensions of stay under the extra immigration policy) are lawful: the Convention imposes a negative duty not to return persons to torture but does not mandate timing or confer any particular immigration status; the Director retains discretion, the policies are not absolute and contain sufficient flexibility to permit prompt investigatory steps where necessary, and the screening process must meet high standards of fairness; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
18 Apr 2011

BK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

BK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2010

The Court held the Director's policy lawful: the Convention does not require claimants to be granted any particular immigration status or that processing must begin while claimants are lawfully present; what is required is that no person be returned until their Article 3 claim is finally determined according to high standards of fairness. The published policy is sufficiently flexible to permit prompt investigation and medical examination where necessary and does not unlawfully fetter the Director's discretion; accordingly the refusals and policy did not render the decisions unlawful in these…
23 Sept 2009

GURUNG GANGA DEVI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

GURUNG GANGA DEVI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL131/2008

The Director's refusal was lawful because the applicant did not meet the clear age threshold in the dependent residence policy; constitutional and Bill of Rights arguments could not be relied upon by a non-resident to override the immigration policy and the procedural joinder of the sponsor did not extend those rights; there was no Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's decision and courts will not substitute their view for immigration policy decisions.
7 Mar 2006

SHAFIQ MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

SHAFIQ MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL10/2006

Given the materials the court was not satisfied the Director's refusal was perverse or Wednesbury unreasonable and the applicant had not demonstrated an arguable case that his proposed business would make a substantial contribution under the Director's policy; therefore leave for judicial review was refused.