Rana Narendra Bahadur v. Director of Hong Kong Immigration

HCAL 51/2026

[2026] HKCFI 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 51 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.By his Form 86 dated 6 January 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the 2 December 2025 decision (“2.12.2025 Decision”) made by the Director of Immigration, refusing the reconsideration request in relation to refusal of an application for a dependant visa for the Applicant’s son, Rana Sandesh (“RS”).

2.There is, however, a mismatch between the Form 86 and the content of the Applicant’s affirmation also dated 6 January 2026. Whilst the body of the affirmation itself expresses the request for a review of the 2.12.2025 Decision, the attachment specifically addresses a different and earlier decision made on 22 May 2025 (“22.5.2025 Decision”). The asserted grounds of unlawfulness and/or unreasonableness in the public law sense are directed at the 22.5.2025 Decision (see below).

3.Having considered the materials provided with the application, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with it on the papers.

4.This is my Decision.

B.  Background

5.The Applicant is a Hong Kong Permanent Resident. He obtained right of abode in Hong Kong in 2020. He is the father of two sons, one being RS born in 1999, and the other born in 2006.

6.The Applicant says that in about 2023, he submitted a dependant visa application for RS, but the Director refused that application for the primary reason that RS was already over 18 years old.

7.In fact, in the papers is a letter dated 4 September 2023, in which the Director referred to the entry dependant visa application, and set out the existing immigration policy. That policy included that, for a sponsor who is a Hong Kong permanent resident or a resident who is not subject to a limit of stay, the dependants who may apply to join him/her for residence in the HKSAR include his/her unmarried dependant children under the age of 18 (as emphasised in the letter itself). The letter pointed out that, as the applicant does not fall within any of the relevant categories, his/her application is outside the prevailing policy. The letter invited any information/documents supporting this outside policy application to be furnished on or before 18 September 2023. As can be seen from below, it seems that no further information was furnished.

8.In passing, I note that that letter is addressed to a Gurung Rupmati (as sponsor), but there is no explanation in the papers provided for this application as to why – though this may not matter.

9.The Applicant says that on 23 April 2025, he made a written request to the Director for reconsideration of the decision, specifically pleading (1) the full history of the matter, including the disclosure of his sons in his own dependant visa application in 2013 and his wife’s subsequent applications for them, and (2) the “compelling medical grounds pertaining to [RS] which necessitate family care and support”.

10.The Applicant suggests in the affirmation that the relevant medical reports are exhibited as part of the exhibit to the affirmation, but they are not.

11.By letter dated 29 April 2025, the Director referred to the entry dependant visa application, and again set out the existing immigration policy. The letter pointed out that, as the applicant does not fall within any of the relevant categories, his/her application is outside the prevailing policy. The letter invited any information/documents supporting this outside policy application to be furnished on or before 13 May 2025.

12.By letter dated 22 May 2025, the Director refused what the Applicant has described as his request for reconsideration, but which seems in fact to have been the actual application for entry for residence as dependant (i.e. the 22.5.2025 Decision). The letter pointed out that, having carefully considered all relevant circumstances and available information, the application is outside the prevailing policy and there exist no strong compassionate or humanitarian reasons or other special extenuating grounds warranting a departure from the prevailing policy.

13.On 15 August 2025, the Applicant made a request for reconsideration.

14.On 2 December 2025, that request was refused (i.e. the 2.12.2025 Decision).

15.It is helpful to set out the terms of the letter comprising the 2.12.2025 Decision, which were as follows (sic) (underlining and bold in original):

Request for Reconsideration of Application for Residence as Dependant in respect of [RS] (“the applicant”)

We refer to your letter dated 15 August 2025 regarding the captioned request and our letters dated 22 August 2025 and 17 October 2025.

It is noted that the application reference quoted in the said letter was EOEN-5009393-23 (“2023 application”) which was taken no further action on 30 October 2023 as no response was received from you. Subsequently, there was another application for residence as dependant in respect of the applicant submitted on 23 April 2025 under reference EOEN-1222016-25 (“2025 application”). The application was refused on 22 May 2025.

Regarding both applications, we regret to inform you that the request is refused as the information provided and the representations made by you do not serve to form any fresh ground pertinent to the conclusion of 2023 application or to the refusal decision of 2025 application for our reconsideration. The decisions dated 30 October 2025 and 22 May 2025 conveyed to you still stands.

16.Hence, the materials identify that:

(1)  There was an original 2023 application – which may have been made using a different sponsor – which was apparently not pursued (and may have been later formally refused).

(2)  There was a further 2025 application which was refused on the basis that the application fell outside the prevailing policy and that there were no sufficient humanitarian or compassionate reasons to depart from that policy (i.e. the 22.5.2025).

(3)  There was then the request for reconsideration, which was refused on the basis that the information provided and representations made did not serve to form any fresh ground pertinent to the previous decision for reconsideration.

C.  Intended Grounds of Review

17.As I have already indicated, the intended grounds of review put forward by the Applicant in the attachment to his affirmation are directed at the 22.5.2025 Decision. They are:

(a)  Failure to consider relevant factors: The Respondent failed to take into account, or to give adequate weight to, all relevant factors I presented. This includes the consistent history of disclosure since 2013 and the significant medical grounds concerning my son’s well-being,

(b)  Unreasonableness/Irrationality: In light of the specific and compassionate circumstances of my case, including the medical hardship, the decision to refuses so disproportionate and unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at it.

18.I shall define them as “Ground 1” and “Ground 2” respectively. Though formally directed at a different decision, I suppose it might be assumed that the Applicant would intend to raise similar grounds of review in any challenge to the 2.12.2025 Decision. However, there is a real or potential difference between a challenge to an original decision and a challenge to a request for reconsideration of that original decision.

D.  Consideration of Merits

19.It is trite that an application for leave to apply for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months of the impugned decision (unless good reason is shown for an extension of time). It is also trite that a request for reconsideration of a decision does not of itself extend time.

20.In this case – and ignoring, for the moment, the 2023 application which was not pursued – the initial refusal was made by the 22.5.2025 Decision. The long stop three-month period for seeking to challenge that decision expired on 22 August 2025. Despite that, no challenge was made in time, or until 6 January 2026 (as it is the 22.5.2025 Decision which is apparently the main target of the intended challenge).

21.Absent the mere fact that there was a request for reconsideration, there is no explanation offered for the failure to have brought the challenge in time, nor any request for an extension of time. As stated, not least when the request for reconsideration does not appear to have provided any fresh ground pertinent to the prior refusal, the request for reconsideration can be thought not to have given rise to a new decision as would extend the time for the intended challenge.

22.In any event, there can be no doubt that RS fell outside the dependant visa application policy, being at least 23 years old and 25 years old in 2023 and 2025 respectively. An application for a visa for RS was necessarily one to be considered as an outside policy application.

23.It is trite that the Director is under no legal obligation to take into account humanitarian or compassionate factors, when deciding whether to grant or refuse a dependant visa. Therefore, there can be no public law ground of criticism based upon an allegation that the Director failed to take into account such factors.

24.Further, it is settled that if the Director voluntarily takes humanitarian or compassionate factors into account, the weight to be given to those factors is a matter for the Director, and not the Court, subject only to potential judicial review on the integrity of the decision-making process. Therefore, a criticism that the Director failed to give adequate weight to particular factors in the decision-making process does not identify a proper public law ground of review.

25.In the circumstances, there is no merit in Ground 1.

26.As to Ground 2, there is a high hurdle for an applicant to show public law unreasonableness or irrationality. However, though the Applicant has made reference to the specific and compassionate circumstances of the case, he has simply failed to detail them and why it might be reasonably arguable that the 22.5.2025 Decision or the 2.12.2025 Decision might be so disproportionate and unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at them. I also note that there is no explanation offered as to why the alleged necessary family care and support has not been available to RS in Nepal (where he has presumably been throughout the period up to date).

E.  Result

27.In the circumstances, in addition to the timing problem, it seems to me that the Applicant has failed to identify any public law grounds of review with any realistic prospect of success.

28.The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person