Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Permission to remain

Legal area

Court

12 May 2021

SHAHZADI ANEELA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1585/2020

The applicant's limit of stay expired on 4 July 2015 and her presence from 5 July 2015 until the grant of fresh permission on 1 November 2017 was without right or permission; such presence cannot constitute ordinary residence under s 2(4)(a)(ii) of the Immigration Ordinance, therefore the Director's, Commissioner's and ROPT's decisions rejecting entitlement to permanent residence were legally correct and the leave application is not reasonably arguable.
25 Mar 2020

RE PANNU GURPREET SINGH

Citation

[2020] HKCA 115
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not raise any arguable grounds that engaged the reasons in the prior judgment, there was no basis to treat the matter as a non-refoulement determination by the court, the court lacked power to grant permission to remain, and the statutory thresholds for leave under section 22(1)(b) and the 'otherwise' limb were not met.
26 Nov 1999

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL83/1999

Section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance unambiguously provides that any permission to remain which is in force on the day a person departs Hong Kong expires immediately upon that departure; therefore no implied revival or legitimate expectation arising from prior permission revives the right to re‑enter; the Immigration Tribunal's contrary finding was based on a misconception of law and was quashed and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.
7 Dec 1994

Attorney General v. Chen Huan qiong and Another

Citation

Attorney General v. Chen Huan qiong and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1926/1994

The Tribunal's determination was quashed because one adjudicator dismissed the appeal and the other failed to make a lawful determination, instead proposing a post hoc grace period; the Tribunal wrongly construed that lack of agreement as an allowance of the appeal. The Director, having previously granted permission to remain, bore the burden to prove the passport was forged; the Panamanian Consul General's letter was admissible. The proper remedy was quashing and remittal to a differently constituted tribunal.
25 Apr 1986

CHEUNG YUK SAI v. THE DIRETOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHEUNG YUK SAI v. THE DIRETOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV42/1986

The Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the appeal without a hearing because the Notice alleged an express permission to remain which falls within section 54A; section 43 creates a rebuttable presumption of delegation that may render the officer's statement an arguable basis for permission and therefore the appellant was entitled to leave to apply for judicial review and a hearing on the evidence.
4 Feb 1986

YIP CHI LIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

YIP CHI LIN v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV144/1985

The plain wording of s19(1)(b) governs: it applies to any person who landed unlawfully whether before or after 11 December 1981; the October 1980 amnesty did not grant a special entitlement to those holding forged identity cards; the Tribunal's statutory remit is confined to determining right to land or permission to remain and it was correct to dismiss without a hearing where only non-statutory humanitarian grounds were advanced.
20 Dec 1985

RE CHOY YI WONG

Citation

RE CHOY YI WONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2595/1985

The application was dismissed: the Tribunal's only issue was permission to remain, which only the Director could grant; the alleged refusal to allow cross-examination was not established and, in any event, questioning about promises was irrelevant to the statutory issue; ROP85 was temporary identification and delay did not amount to tacit permission to remain.
9 May 1985

RE WONG SHU HUNG

Citation

RE WONG SHU HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP228/1985

Although the written notice of appeal could be liberally construed to raise an argument of implied permission, implied permission requires evidence of an intention by the Director to permit stay; where the immigration authorities were actively investigating under section 4(1)(a) and the material did not reasonably support an inference of such intention, the Tribunal correctly found the ground not reasonably arguable and was entitled to dismiss without a hearing.
7 Sept 1984

RE HUI HO-WAH

Citation

RE HUI HO-WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1715/1984

The court held that the applicants' claim to be holders of lawfully issued Hong Kong Identity Cards was sufficient to permit an inference that they had the Director of Immigration's permission to remain, and that the Immigration Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals under section 53C without permitting the applicants to adduce evidence; the Tribunal's determination of 21 March 1984 was quashed and it was ordered to rehear the appeals.
7 Sept 1984

RE HUI LAI-MING

Citation

RE HUI LAI-MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1714/1984

The court held that the applicants' claim to be holders of lawfully issued Hong Kong Identity Cards was sufficient to imply they claimed the Director of Immigration's permission to remain; accordingly the Immigration Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals under section 53C without permitting a hearing, and the proper remedy was to quash the Tribunal's determination and order the Tribunal to hear the appeals.