GURUNG SIMA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
HTML content
HCAL 34/2020
[2020] HKCFI 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 34 OF 2020
________________________
| BETWEEN | ||
| GURUNG SIMA | Applicant | |
and | ||
| DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION | Putative | |
| Respondent | ||
________________
| Before: | Hon Chow J in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: | 14 January 2020 |
___________________
D E C I S I O N
___________________
1. By her Form 86 dated 3 January 2020, the Applicant seeks to apply for judicial review of the decisions, or alleged decisions, of the Director of Immigration dated 23 December 2019 and 31 December 2019 refusing to grant an extension of stay. The Form 86 does not state any relief sought, or any ground on which relief is sought.
2. In her affirmation filed in support of the application, the Applicant merely states the following:
“I want to Judicial Review the refusal decision of Director of Immigration in refusing my extension of stay and change of status application under ACCS-2730-19. The decisions dated 23.12.2019 and 31.12.2019 of extension section of Director of Immigration are unreasonable and unfair.”
3. The Applicant previously made a similar application in HCAL 641/2017 on 19 September 2017 to challenge the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 17 February 2015 and 22 May 2015 refusing to grant an extension of stay and the decision of the Chief Executive in Council dated 1 September 2017 rejecting her objection against the decisions of the Director of Immigration. That application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed by Au J (as he then was) on 3 November 2017.
4. No proper evidential basis is disclosed in the papers before the court to support the allegation that the Director of Immigration’s decisions are unreasonable or unfair. In particular, the Applicant has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the decisions of the Director of Immigration are or may be wrong in law or irrational, or tainted by procedural irregularities. The intended application for judicial review is not reasonably arguable, and has no realistic prospect of success.
5. The present application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
| (Anderson Chow) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
The Applicant acting in person