21 Mar 2003
Leave to appeal was refused because there was no matter of great general or public importance; the Refusal Notice was founded on invalid grounds (as demonstrated by Gurung) and the Director can, if appropriate, exercise correct statutory powers (eg section 19) rather than rely on the defective Refusal Notice.
29 Jun 2000
Section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance causes any permission to remain to expire on departure so the applicants return required fresh permission reviewable on Wednesbury principles; on the materials before the Director (Mainlands investigation, prior cautioned statements, documentary inconsistencies and history of sham documents) his refusal and removal order were within lawful discretion and not irrational, and no obligation of full procedural disclosure applied to removal of an unlawful entrant.
30 May 2000
Section 11(10) does not contravene Article 31 of the Basic Law when read in context with Article 39 and applicable ICCPR reservations; the Director lawfully exercised a wide statutory discretion on cogent evidence of fraudulent conduct and did not act irrationally, perversely or in breach of procedural fairness; accordingly the refusal to land and subsequent removal order were lawful and the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
6 Dec 1994
Given the Immigration Department's investigations and the Bureau of Exit Entry Administration's clear statement that the applicant's permit was 'yet to be issued', there was sufficient material for the Director to conclude the permit had not been lawfully issued; on that basis refusal of permission to land and detention were lawful, not irrational or ultra vires, and did not violate comity or natural justice in the circumstances.