NASEEM-AKHTAR (Next to kin of MUHAMMAD RIZWAN) v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 989/2022

[2022] HKCFI 3104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 989 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

A.  Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 dated 22 September 2022, the Applicant – acting as “next to kin of Muhammad Rizwan” – seeks to challenge (capitals in original) the:

DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION TO REFUSE THE RIGHT TO LAND OF MUHAMMAD RIZWAN AND VISIT VISA UNDER REFERENCE NO. VOEV-004 0719-20. THE DECISION DATED 24.06.2020.

2.  The Applicant’s affirmation in support of the Form 86 states (capitals in original):

I want to challenge the decision of the Director of Immigration to refuse the Right to Land and visit visa application of my son MUHAMMAD RIZWAN under VOEV-0040719-20 dated the 24 June 2020. There is now produced and marked a letter dated 15-01-2021 from Employment and Visit Visa Section as “NA-1” and a copy of my Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card as “NA-2”.

3.  The exhibit NA-1 comprises: (a) the letter from the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 June 2020 identifying that, having taken into consideration the documents and information made available as well as the circumstances of the application, the application was not approved; and (b) the letter from the Director dated 15 January 2021, again informing that the visit visa application with the Applicant named as sponsor had the result indicated in the previous letter.

4.  Both of those letters were addressed to the same firm of solicitors, Mohnani & Associates, who have filed the Form 86 in these proceedings.

5.  Notwithstanding that fact, the Form 86 and the affirmation simply identify a desire to challenge the relevant decision of the Director. But, neither the Form 86 nor the affirmation make any attempt whatsoever either (1) to identify any public law grounds as might support the intended challenge, or (2) to seek any extension of time for making the intended challenge and/or to state the basis upon which it might be argued that such an extension of time should be granted (where the time for any intended challenge expired at least 17, possibly 24, months ago).

B.  Result

6.  In other words, notwithstanding that the recipient of the decision the subject of intended challenge was the solicitors firm, and that the same firm filed the papers in these proceedings, those papers wholly fail to identify any proper basis upon which the Court would even entertain the application, let alone why it should grant leave to apply for judicial review. Presumably, the solicitors could not identify any grounds for review or reasons to seek an extension of time to commence it.

7.  In those circumstances, it might be hoped – and I would assume – that the solicitors have not charged their client anything other than the filing fee.

8.  In any event, both of those failures are fatal to the application. It should never have been filed. Having to deal with such an application is a total waste of Court time and resources.

9.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs.