Sah Shiv Kumar v. The Director of Immigration

HCAL 435/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 435 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.This is the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of the court made on 28 March 2019 refusing to extend the time for him to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of (i) the decision of the Director of Immigration made on 21 March 2018 refusing his application for a dependant visa, and (ii) the deportation order for life issued against him on 6 October 2017 (“the Deportation Order”), and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The basic facts relating to the Applicant’s case are set out in the court’s written decision handed down on 28 March 2019 (“the Decision”), and shall not be repeated here.

3.In his summons dated 11 April 2019 for leave to appeal, the Applicant stated that his application for leave to apply for judicial review was late because the Director did not provide him with any opportunity to appeal against the Deportation Order.  As a matter of law, an application could be made to the Chief Executive to seek a suspension or rescission of the Deportation Order under Sections 54 and 55 of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.  As pointed out in paragraph 17 of the Decision, the Applicant did not, as a matter of fact, apply to suspend or rescind the Deportation Order.  In any event, the grounds relied upon by the Applicant would not justify the suspension or rescission of the Deportation Order.

4.The Applicant has not, in his summons or his affirmation dated 11 April 2019, said anything regarding the merits of his intended appeal, or the merits of his intended application for leave to apply for judicial review.  In his oral submissions, the Applicant merely said that he wished the court to deal with the Deportation Order so that he could obtain a dependant visa.

5.The court is not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended appeal has a reasonable prospect of success, or there is any other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard. Accordingly, the application for leave to apply is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, acting in person