TAMANG SUDHA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

HCAL 2457/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2457 OF 2025

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 4 November 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the Director of Immigration’s refusal of her application for extension of stay under a dependant visa (“Decision”).

2.  The Form 86 does not set out any grounds on which relief is sought. Nor does it actually specify the relief sought, although the Applicant’s affirmation does identify that she requests the grant of leave for judicial review with the wish of “overturning” the Decision and “securing appropriate relief and justice”. The affirmation also suggests (1) that the refusal letter and departure memo provided to her did not provide any concrete reasons for the rejection of her application, and (2) that the Decision infringes upon her right to live with her spouse and is prejudicial in nature.

3.  Having considered the materials provided with the application, I am satisfied that it can appropriately be dealt with on paper. This is my decision. I am aware from Memorandum filed on 6 November 2025 that the Applicant has filed an application for Legal Aid, which would have triggered the automatic 42-day stay. However, in the circumstances I outline below, I see no prejudice to the Applicant if I lift the stay, which in the exercise of my discretion I do.

B.  Further Background

4.  By way of further background, as taken from the Applicant’s affirmation and the two letters attached, it seems that the Applicant arrived in Hong Kong in 2023 to work as a foreign domestic helper. In 2024 she married her husband, Mr Limbu Tek Bahadur (“Husband”).

5.  Following the marriage, the Applicant was granted a dependant visa under the Husband’s sponsorship. Since receiving that visa, the Applicant has been employed as a restaurant worker. The dependant visa was valid until 13 September 2025.

6.  On 18 August 2025, the Applicant submitted an application for extension of stay. That application was refused (i.e. the Decision) by letter dated 22 October 2025.

7.  That letter identified the circumstances under which an application for a dependant visa may be favourably considered in accordance with the dependant visa policy, namely that (a) there is reasonable proof of a genuine relationship between the applicant and the sponsor; (b) there is no known record to the detriment of the applicant; and (c) the sponsor is able to support the dependant’s living at a standard well above the subsistence level and provide him/her with suitable accommodation in the HKSAR.

8.  The Decision letter also stated (bold and underlining in original):

You were previously approved to remain in the HKSAR as a dependent wife of [the Husband]. Based on the available information, we are not satisfied that [the Husband] continued to be financially capable of supporting your living in the HKSAR at a standard well above the subsistence level. Your application for extension of stay is therefore refused.

9.  The Decision letter further pointed out that, as the Applicant’s visa had expired since 14 September 2025, she was required to leave the HKSAR before 5 November 2025.

10.  On the same day, namely 22 October 2025, the Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of the Decision. That request is currently under review.

11.  By letter dated 3 November 2025, the Director acknowledged the request for reconsideration of the Decision, but pointed out (as is obviously correct) that the request did not grant any extension of stay or right to remain in the HKSAR, so that the Applicant was reminded that she should leave the HKSAR on or before 5 November 2025. She was also asked to provide all supporting documents and information as she might think fit on or before 5 November 2025.

C.  Whether any Merits

12.  It is a mandatory requirement of Order 53 rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must set out in the Form 86 the relief sought and the grounds upon which the relief is sought, and must also file an affidavit or affirmation verifying the facts relied on.

13.  As stated above, in this case, the Applicant has failed to set out in her Form 86 any intended grounds of review. In so far as any possible grounds of review can be seen in the affirmation, they seem to be that (1) no concrete reasons were provided for the Decision, (2) the Decision infringed upon the right to live with her spouse, and (3) the Decision is prejudicial in nature.

14.  None of those possible grounds have any reasonably arguable merit:

(1)  First, the Decision letter plainly gave the concrete reasons why the application for extension of stay was refused. I have set them out above.

(2)  Secondly, it is trite that the dependant visa policy is not a policy of family union or reunion. Quite simply, unless the Applicant can establish a proper basis for the grant of a visa to permit her residence in the HKSAR, there is no relevant right for her to be here to live with her spouse.

(3)  Thirdly, the mere claim to prejudice does not amount to an arguable public law error. Nor in any event does the Applicant give nay particulars of the prejudice she has allegedly suffered.

D.  Result

15.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground of review of the Decision with any realistic prospect of success.

16.  In the circumstances, I refuse leave to apply for judicial review. I make no order as to costs.