TAJAPAL REMEDIOS TANALLON v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT OF HONG KONG

HCAL 416/2026

[2026] HKCFI 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 416 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By her Form 86 dated 16 February 2026, the Applicant seeks for leave to apply for judicial review, naming the Immigration Department (“ImmD”) as the Putative Respondent.

2.  The ‘target’ decision of the intended challenge is described on the Form 86 as:

Case adjourn on 20^th of February 2026 at Shatin Court STCC 4634.

3.  No intended grounds of review are identified on the Form 86. The Applicant’s supporting affidavit merely says, in total:

I am the dependant and I was charged with breach of condition of stay contrary to Section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance. I am currently on bail granted on 9^th of December 2025. I [k]now I may not to leave Hong Kong because of my medical conditions requiring treatment and follow up check up and procedures. My follow check up is on 11^th of May 2026 at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. Attach[ment] A.

4.  Attachment A is an Extract of Record of Bail Proceedings at the Shatin Magistracy, relating to the Applicant and with case reference STCC 4634/2025. The Extract identifies that the Applicant was granted bail at a hearing on 3 February 2026, on conditions of a $500 cash surety and not to leave Hong Kong. The case was adjourned to further hearing at 9:30am on 20 February 2026.

5.  Having considered the papers, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this matter on the papers alone.

B.  No Merits

6.  It is trite that, for an applicant to be granted leave to apply for judicial review, he/she must identify in the Form 86 reasonably arguable intended grounds of judicial review. It is not for the Court to seek to divine potential grounds of review from the materials provided to it.

7.  The Applicant has failed to identify any intended ground of review, whether in the Form 86 itself or in her affidavit. That is fatal to the application.

8.  In any event, it is difficult to see what is the intended complaint. The Applicant faces a charge in the proceedings STCC 4634/2025, which she can defend as she sees fit. She has been granted bail, and bail was granted on conditions which she apparently does not challenge. Further, this Court exercising its judicial review jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court from decisions of the Magistrate as regards the grant or refusal or conditions of bail.

9.  Lastly, I note that the Form 86 was issued just one working day before the scheduled magistrates’ court hearing on 20 February 2026, at which hearing the Applicant was no doubt able to have made any submissions she wished in relation to the question of bail or the criminal charge.

C.  Result

10.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of review with any realistic prospect of success. In the circumstances, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.