NASEER UMAIR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 744/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 744 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1.  On 5 May 2020, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of an alleged “Removal Order” made by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) against him dated “06-05-2016” was scheduled to be heard by this court. The Applicant did not appear at that hearing. The court, after hearing Government counsel on behalf of the Director, dismissed the application with costs to the Putative Respondent. Reasons for the decision were handed down on 13 May 2020.

2.  On 14 August 2020, the Applicant took out a summons asking the court to “review” his case.  In the summons and his affirmation in support, the Applicant states that he is married to a Hong Kong permanent resident, and if the Removal Order is implemented against him, the right of his wife, a Hong Kong permanent resident, “to raise family freely” under Article 37 of the Basic Law and Articles 14 and 19 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights will be seriously affected.  The Applicant also states that he does not want to be separated from his wife, and the Removal Order against him will make it very difficult for him to maintain his life.

3.  The Applicant has not given any explanation for his failure to attend the hearing on 5 May 2020.  He has not suggested that there is any error in the court’s Reasons for Decision dated 13 May 2020.  The matters raised by him in the present summons and affirmation cannot support any challenge to the Removal Order dated 6 March 2018, or the Deportation Order dated 27 April 2018 by way of judicial review.  There is thus no basis for the court to “review” the earlier decision made on 5 May 2020, assuming that the court has jurisdiction to do so.

4.  The Applicant has also failed to attend today’s hearing, even though the summons was taken out by him.

5.  In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant’s summons dated 14 August 2020 is dismissed, with costs to the Putative Respondent (if any have been incurred), to be taxed if not agreed.