SAEED UR REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 1328/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1328 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.  The Applicant first entered Hong Kong in May 2007, and his limit of stay was last extended up to 15 April 2016.  Since that date, the Applicant has been overstaying in Hong Kong.  He has also spent various periods of time in prison following conviction for a number of criminal offences.

2.  Since 2016, the Applicant has made a series of applications for Verification of Eligibility for Permanent Identity Card (“VEPIC”), for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card (“HKPIC”), by way of appeals to the Registration of Persons Tribunal (“ROPT”), and by way of applications for leave to apply for judicial review.  None of those applications had any sufficient merit to be successful.

3.  By his Form 86 dated 23 July 2026, the Applicant again seeks leave to apply for judicial review.  His intended challenge is to the Determination of the ROPT made on 21 May 2026, by which it was held that the Applicant does not have the right of abode (“ROA”) in Hong Kong, and is not a Hong Kong Permanent Resident (“HKPR”)

4.  Upon the Applicant’s request for an oral hearing, I fixed today as the date for the oral hearing of the application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.  By letter dated 10 August 2026, the Applicant wrote to the Court indicating that he was taking steps to apply for legal aid, and asking for the hearing to be deferred until he had a legal representative (whether provided through legal aid, or perhaps privately).  However, the Court has received a Memorandum or Notice dated 4 August 2026 of the application for legal aid.  Therefore, the automatic 42-day legal aid stay has been triggered.

6.  This morning, the Applicant pursued his request for an adjournment of the hearing to permit him time either to be allocated a legal aid lawyer or to arrange privately paid legal representation.  He informed me that, if his legal aid application were to be refused, his family would come to Hong Kong in October 2026, and he would then seek private legal representation.  He confirmed he was, as a result, seeking an adjournment until in or after October 2026.

7.  Even had I been minded not to do so, I would not have adjourned this matter to any later than the expiry of the legal aid stay on 15 September 2026, and certainly not as late as October 2026 or afterwards, it being unclear to me why any privately paid legal representative could not have been engaged already.  But I have decided, in the exercise of my discretion, to lift the legal aid stay.  I also refused the requested deferral or adjournment of the hearing.  In short, the matter is straightforward, all necessary materials are before the Court, and I see no prejudice to the Applicant for the hearing to go ahead.

8.  The Applicant is presently detained in administrative detention (pending his removal from Hong Kong), and his appearance at Court was secured by a body order.  At the hearing, the Applicant has appeared in person, and has made various submissions, with the benefit of an Urdu interpreter.

9.  Having heard the application, this is my Decision.

B.  Background

10.  Much of the background can be taken from my own previous decision dated 15 January 2025, [2025] HKCFI 265, given in a previous judicial review application in HCAL 1932/2024.  I can supplement it so as necessary to bring matters up-to-date.

11.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national.

12.  In December 2006, the Applicant married Ms Bibi Asma (“Ms Bibi”) in Pakistan.  Ms Bibi is a HKPR.  They had a daughter born in December 2008.  The marriage of the Applicant and Ms Bibi was dissolved in February 2016.

13.  Prior to that, the Applicant was approved to join Ms Bibi as a dependant in April 2007.  On 22 May 2007, he entered Hong Kong on the strength of his dependant visa with a limit of stay granted up to 22 May 2008.  Various extensions of stay were subsequently granted, and the Applicant’s dependant visa was last extended up to 15 April 2016.

14.  Since that date, the Applicant has been overstaying in Hong Kong.

15.  On 9 March 2015, the Applicant was convicted of the offence of ‘Possession of dangerous drug’, and on 23 March 2015 he was sentenced to be admitted to Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.

16.  On 8 April 2016, the Applicant made an application for Verification of Eligibility for Permanent Identity Card (“1^st Application for VEPIC”).  That application was refused by the Director on 7 September 2016, on the basis that the Applicant was not able to meet the requirement of having ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 7 years under paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 1 to the Ordinance.  The Director considered that the Applicant’s sentence of being admitted to the drug addiction centre constituted a break in the continuity of his ordinary residence in Hong Kong immediately before the date of his 1^st Application for VEPIC.

17.  On 4 August 2017, the Applicant was convicted of the offence of ‘Attempted burglary’ and sentenced to 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  He completed that sentence on 2 March 2019.

18.  On 25 March 2019, the Applicant lodged an out-of-time application for leave to apply for judicial review against the refusal of his 1^st Application for VEPIC. That application, in HCAL 906/2019, was later dismissed on 24 August 2019.

19.  In the meantime, on 16 April 2019, a Removal Order was made against the Applicant.  On 25 April 2019, the Applicant declared that he would not appeal against the Removal Order.  The Applicant was originally detained pending removal from Hong Kong, until released on recognizance on 13 July 2019.

20.  The Applicant subsequently absconded, and on 12 December 2023 was arrested for absconding and detained.

21.  In the meantime, on 30 April 2019, the Applicant filed an application for Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card (“1^st Application for HKPIC”).  That application was refused by the Commissioner of Registration (“Commissioner”) on the same day, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Applicant had the ROA in Hong Kong.  Also on the same day, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the ROPT against the refusal of his 1^st Application for HKPIC.  That appeal was later dismissed by the ROPT on 21 February 2024.

22.  On 30 April 2021, the Applicant was convicted of ‘Gambling in a gambling establishment’ and was sentenced to a fine of HK$500.  On 12 December 2023, the Applicant was convicted again of the same offence and sentenced to a fine of HK$1,000.

23.  On 10 April 2024, the Applicant made another application for Verification of Eligibility for Permanent Identity Card (“2^nd Application for VEPIC”).

24.  On 9 July 2024, the Applicant’s 2^nd Application for VEPIC was refused.  The Director considered that the Applicant’s overstaying in Hong Kong since 16 April 2016, and his imprisonment sentence arising from his attempted burglary conviction constituted a break in the continuity of his ordinary residence in Hong Kong immediately before the date of his 2^nd Application for VEPIC.

25.  On 23 July 2024, the Applicant was served with a ‘Notice of Consideration of Deportation’, to which he objected on the ground that his family members are living in Hong Kong.  In addition to the daughter born to the Applicant and Ms Bibi, the Applicant has a further son and daughter with his girlfriend Ms Ashrina Emaan Jameel (“Ms Jameel”), born in August 2015 and September 2017 respectively.  Ms Jameel and the Applicant’s three children are HKPRs.

26.  On 26 July 2024, the Director made an application to the Secretary for a Deportation Order for life against the Applicant, on the ground that his continued presence in Hong Kong was undesirable.

27.  On 9 August 2024, the Deportation Order for life was made against the Applicant.  It was made by the Permanent Secretary for Security (“PS for S”), under delegated power.  It was made under section 20(1)(a) of the Ordinance, on the basis that the Applicant was not a HKPR and that he had been found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years.  The Deportation Order was served on the Applicant on 14 August 2024.

28.  On 27 August 2024, the Applicant filed another application for Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card (“2^nd Application for HKPIC”).  That application was refused by the Commissioner on the same day, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Applicant had the ROA in Hong Kong.

29.  On 9 September 2024, the ROPT acknowledged receipt of the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal dated 27 August 2024, against the refusal of his 2^nd Application for HKPIC.  That appeal was dismissed by the ROPT’s Determination dated 21 May 2026.  As already identified, it is that Determination which is the subject of the intended judicial review challenge in these proceedings.

30.  On 28 October 2024, the Applicant brought proceedings number HCAL 1932/2024 seeking leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the Deportation Order.  That was dismissed by my decision dated 15 January 2025, as referred to above.

31.  On 5 December 2024, the Applicant was sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for ‘Assault occasioning actual bodily harm’.

32.  By written significations dated 21 January 2025 and 4 February 2025, the Applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim (“NRC”). That claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 4 June 2025.

33.  On 9 December 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, out of time.  On 29 December 2025, the Board refused the application for late filing.

34.  On 3 March 2026, the Applicant commenced proceedings number HCAL 513/2026, seeking leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board’s decision.  That application was dismissed by decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 30 April 2026, [2026] HKCFI 2480.  His later application for an extension of time within which to appeal from that decision was heard on 5 August 2026.  I understand that an extension of time was granted until 26 August 2026.

C.  The Determination

35.  On his appeal against the refusal of his 2^nd Application for HKPIC, the Applicant appeared before the ROPT, and his submissions were recorded and taken into account.

36.  In its Determination, the ROPT set out the relevant statutory provisions, before identifying what requirements the Applicant had to satisfy, as a person not of Chinese nationality, to qualify as an HKPR under paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 1.

37.  By reference to an earlier decision of my own, the ROPT identified that the question it had to decide for itself, based on the facts, was whether the Applicant had the ROA in Hong Kong.  It concluded that he did not, for the following broad reasons:

(1)  The applicant is a Pakistani national, and not of Chinese nationality.

(2)  Hence, he must satisfy three concurrent conditions in order to qualify as an HK PR under paragraph 2(d) of the Schedule, being:

(a)  he must have entered Hong Kong with a valid travel document (“Entry requirement”);

(b)  he must have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 7 years (“7-year Ordinary Residence Requirement”); and

(c)  he must have taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence (“Permanence Requirement”).

(3)  The 7-year ordinary residence period should be reckoned to include a continuous period of 7 years immediately before the date when the Applicant made the 2^nd VEPIC Application, namely from 10 April 2017 to 10 April 2024.

(4)  The Applicant first arrived in Hong Kong as a dependant on 22 May 2007, but his permission to remain expired on 15 April 2016, since which date he has been overstaying.

(5)  Pursuant to section 2(4)(a)(ii) of the Ordinance, the Applicant shall not be treated as ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during the period in which he remained in Hong Kong in contravention of his condition of stay.

(6)  Further, the Applicant served a term of imprisonment from 4 August 2017 to March 2019.

(7)  Pursuant to section 2(4)(b) of the Ordinance, the Applicant shall not be treated as ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during any period of imprisonment or detention pursuant to the sentence or order of any court.

(8)  The continuity of his ordinary residence in Hong Kong was broken on the day he was imprisoned.

(9)  Further, a removal order and a deportation order were made against the Applicant on 16 April 2019 and 9 August 2024 respectively.

(10)  Pursuant to sections 19(4) and 20(7) of the Ordinance, the permission given to the Applicant on 22 May 2007 had been invalidated by the removal order and deportation order.

(11)  The Applicant’s physical presence in Hong Kong cannot be regarded as lawful residence, still less can it be for the purposes of accruing continuous ordinary residence.

(12)  Therefore, the Applicant did not fulfil the Entry Requirement and the 7-year Ordinary Residence Requirement.

38.  By the Determination, therefore, the ROPT dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.

D.  This Intended Challenge

39.  It is trite that, under the governing provisions of Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2), an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must identify on the Form 86 the grounds upon which the relief is sought.  A failure to do so is fatal to the application.

40.  However, the Applicant’s Form 86 does not identify any intended grounds of review.  Nor, with respect does the Applicant’s affirmation filed in support of the present application.  That affirmation gives some historical background, and in essence states merely that (1) the decisions about which he makes complaint are unreasonable, (2) he does not agree / he is not satisfied with the decision made by the ROPT, and (3) he would like to lodge an application for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision which is “fresh, proper and on-time”.

41.  None of those matters are capable of identifying any proper intended public law ground of review.  As stated, that is fatal. Therefore, the application must be dismissed.

42.  In any event, it seems to me that the Determination demonstrates no reasonably arguable public law ground of review on any of the traditional grounds.  The ROPT asked itself the right question and answered it, there is no question of illegality or procedural unfairness, and the Determination is not arguably irrational or unreasonable in the public law sense.  Indeed, on the materials – and though it is perhaps unnecessary for me to look in particular at the merits, as opposed to the integrity of the decision-making process – it seems to me that the Determination is plainly entirely correct.

43.  In his oral submissions this morning, the Applicant essentially repeated his dissatisfaction with earlier decisions, being those which I have already traversed in the factual background above.  As I sought to emphasise to the Applicant during the hearing, the present proceedings do not relate to those previous decisions, but are in respect of the intended challenge to the Determination.  Nothing said by the Applicant this morning changes the above analysis on the merits of the present application.

E.  Result

44.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of review with any realistic prospect of success.

45.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.  For the avoidance of doubt, whilst the Applicant at one point suggested that if I were to go ahead with the hearing this morning, he would withdraw the application for leave to apply for judicial review, I would not have permitted that withdrawal.  It seems to me that the application should be dismissed.

46.  I make no order as to costs.

F.  Postscript

47.  As indicated above, even leaving aside the periods of time which the Applicant has spent in prison, the Applicant has spent over 10 years as an illegal immigrant in Hong Kong.

48.  It would be helpful, and it is only appropriate, for the Applicant finally to realise that as a result he cannot ever establish a period of ordinary residence capable of giving him the ROA, or to be able to establish that he is a HKPR.  If the Applicant were to seek to continue his series of meritless applications to this Court, he can anticipate that he will face the realistic possibility of a Restrictive Proceedings Order being made against him.

49.  In any event, the Applicant is subject to a Deportation Order – and any challenge to that has failed and/or is now impossibly out of time.  The Deportation Order remains extant, and I assume it is capable of being executed.

50.  The Applicant would be wrong to assume that these proceedings or any similar proceedings would amount to any legal impediment to his removal or deportation.  Similarly, because his application leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 513/2026 in respect of a refusal of his NRC has been dismissed, there is no longer any legal impediment to his removal or deportation arising from his NRC.  This is so, notwithstanding that he has been granted an extension of time to make an appeal.