1.Paragraph 33 (3) on page 9 should read as follows:
“(3) Whether Ms Tamang’s constitutional rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance had been infringed forbythe Director in not providing the grounds for his decision that there were no circumstances to justify an exception to the policy in granting dependent visa.
2.Paragraph 33 (4) on page 9 should read as follows:
“(4) Whether the Tribunal has a directiondiscretionnot to treat such permissions as of no effect.”
3.Paragraph 58 (5) on page 18 should read as follows:
“(5) The Tribunal’s Decision should thus be set quashed and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration as to whether Ms Tamang was fraudulent or reckless, and if not, whether the Director was wrong in not allowing the applicant’s dependent visa to stand. This is so because the mere fact that she was not validly married to the applicant would not automatically disentitle him from obtaining a dependent visa.”
(C.F. TAM)
Clerk to the Honourable Mr. Justice Au High Court
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error