MD ZAKIR HOSSEN v 1. ) Ketua Pengarah Jab. Imigresen Malaysia (BA-25-26-03/2024)

1.

2.

KERAJAAN MALAYSIA …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT [1] This is an application by the applicant for leave to commence judicial review proceedings against the respondents pursuant to Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”). [2] At the crux of this application seeking leave is an order of certiorari to quash the action and decision of the Director of Immigration Department of Malaysia on 3.10.2021 that listed the applicant’s name in “Senarai Syak” under the Immigration Department of Malaysia (“JIM”) and dismissed all the benefits against applicant (“the impugned decision”). S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA [3] This reliefs sought by the applicant as per in Enclosure 1 are reproduced below: “1. Bahawa Pemohon diberikan kebenaran untuk memfailkan dan menyampaikan Notis Permohonan (Semakan Kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53, Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012) kepada Responden-Responden dalam masa empat belas (14) hari dari tarikh perintah kebenaran permohonan dibenarkan;

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia pada 03.10.2021 yang telah menyenaraikan nama Pemohon dalam senarai syak JIM dan menolak semua kemudahan terhadap Pemohon (selepas ini dirujuk sebagai ‘tindakan dan keputusan tersebut’) atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut bertentangan dengan peruntukan nyata dan tersirat Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Perkara 5, 8 dan Perkara 11) serta menyalahi Akta Imigresen 1959/63 (Akta 155) dan Peraturan-Peraturan

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut adalah ‘premature’, ‘ultra vires’, ‘mala fide’ dan bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta 155 memandangkan Pemohon masih belum dituduh di Mahkamah dan didapati bersalah untuk apa-apa kesalahan;

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut adalah diputuskan terhadap Pemohon tanpa sebarang alasan yang munasabah bertentangan dengan Akta 155; S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA BA-25-26-03/2024 5. Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut terhadap Pemohon adalah satu pelaksanaan kuasa secara tidak munasabah (‘unreasonable exercise of power’);

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut terhadap Pemohon yang merupakan satu kesumbangan prosedur (‘procedural impropriety’) kerana tidak mematuhi peruntukan di bawah Seksyen 14(4) dan seksyen 14(5)

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa Pemohon dan isteri beliau tidak diberikan right to family life untuk menjalankan tanggungjawab mereka sebagai suami isteri apabila mereka telah berkahwin secara sah;

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa Pemohon tidak diberi hak untuk menjadi seorang suami kepada warganegara Malaysia apabila mereka telah berkahwin secara sah;

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut terhadap Pemohon telah melanggar prinsip legitimate expectation;

Satu perintah Certiorari membatalkan tindakan dan keputusan tersebut atas alasan bahawa tindakan tersebut terhadap Pemohon telah melanggar prinsip ‘natural justice’ apabila Pemohon tidak diberikan peluang untuk didengar; S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA BA-25-26-03/2024 11. Satu Perintah Mandamus terhadap Responden Pertama supaya membenarkan Pemohon untuk membuat membuat permohonan baru Pas Lawatan Sosial (Jangka Panjang) Isteri/ Suami kepada Warganegara Malaysia;

Satu Perintah Mandamus terhadap Responden Pertama supaya membenarkan kemudahan kepada Pemohon;

Satu Perintah Mandamus terhadap Responden Ketiga dan Responden Kedua supaya mengarahkan dan menyelia Responden Pertama untuk tidak mencabuli hak kebebasan asasi Pemohon dan mematuhi peruntukan

Satu Perintah Mandamus terhadap Responden Ketiga supaya mengarahkan dan menyelia Responden Kedua dan Responden Pertama untuk menyelaraskan langkah pelaksanaan undang-undang Persekutuan secara rasional;

Satu deklarasi bahawa tindakan dan Keputusan Ketua Pengarah terhadap Pemohon adalah ‘ultra vires’ Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Akta 155;

Satu deklarasi bahawa tindakan tersebut oleh Ketua Pengarah adalah satu penyalahgunaan kuasa (‘abuse of discretionary power’) kerana dibuat sebelum Pemohon dituduh di Mahkamah dan didapati bersalah;

Satu deklarasi bahawa Pemohon mempunyai jangkaan sah (‘legitimate expectation’) bahawa langkah pelaksanaan undang-undang ke atas Pemohon hanya boleh dibuat menurut lunas undang-undang dan amalan sah yang terpakai; S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA BA-25-26-03/2024 18. Satu deklarasi bahawa Akta Imigresen 1959/ 63 (Akta 155) tidak mengatasi Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga

Satu deklarasi bahawa Akta Imigresen 1959/ 63 (Akta 155) tidak mengatasi Akta Membaharui Undang-Undang (Perkahwinan Dan Perceraian) 1976 (Akta 164);

Bahawa segala arahan dan perintah yang perlu dan berikutan diberi;

Bahawa kos-kos dalam permohonan ditanggung

Pampasan ditaksirkan di atas aib, trauma, ketakutan, kehilangan, kerugian, kesusahan, kerosakan reputasi dan nama baik yang dialami dan ditanggung oleh Pemohon akibat tindakan pembatalan pas tersebut; dan 23. Relief-relief selanjutnya atau yang lain sebagaimana yang difikirkan sesuai dan berpatutan oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.” Factual Background [4] The facts are as gathered from the submissions of parties. This court respectfully adopts them subject to some modifications. [5] In 2019, the applicant was employed by Gaya Garuda Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant's employer"). All processes for renewing the applicant's work pass with JIM were carried out by the applicant's employer. The work pass was valid from 24.7.2019 until 19.7.2021. S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA [6] The applicant met his wife (Musfirah Syahira binti Musa) (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant's wife”) through the dating site Minder in July 2019. [7] On 25.11.2019, the applicant and his wife applied for the verification of the pass (for the purpose of marriage with a foreign national) with JIM Putrajaya, where the application was approved by JIM Putrajaya. [8] On 11.1.2020, the applicant married his wife at Bizmilla City Hall, Level 2, Bizmilla Wedding Centre, One City, Jalan USJ 25/1, 47650 Subang Jaya, Selangor. [9] Subsequently, in March 2020 Malaysia implemented the first Movement Control Order (“MCO”) nationwide. Following this, the applicant's wife moved back to Peninsular Malaysia to work from home and has been living with the applicant in one residence since then. [10] On 19.4.2021, prior to the expiration of the applicant’s work pass on 19.7.2021, the applicant applied for a renewal of the Visa under the Long-Term Social Visit Pass (Husband to Citizen) (“the new visa application”) at JIM Kuala Lumpur. [11] On 19.7.2021, the applicant and his wife attended an appointment at JIM Kuala Lumpur but were informed by the immigration officer that the documents were incomplete and were asked to return when the documents were complete. [12] The applicant and his wife attended JIM Kuala Lumpur on 22.9.2021 with the application documents but were again informed by the immigration officer that the documents were still incomplete. S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA [13] The applicant and his wife went to JIM Kuala Lumpur with the application documents on 1.10.2021 but were again informed by the immigration officer that the documents were incomplete. [14] On 28.10.2021, the applicant and his wife went to JIM Kuala Lumpur. They were instructed by the immigration officer to obtain a special pass from the Employment Pass Division either at JIM Putrajaya or Johor Bahru because the applicant's work pass had expired before the new visa application process could continue. [15] On 22.11.2021, the applicant and his wife went to JIM Putrajaya to obtain a special pass. However, they were informed that a special pass would not be issued because the applicant’s name was listed in the suspect list under code RAI/PS0033 due to involvement in the irregular issuance of Employment Passes. [16] Between November 2021 to November 2022, the applicant's wife repeatedly appealed to the Director General of JIM. On 15.2.2023, the applicant’s wife appointed Messrs Nazrin & Izzat to appeal to the Director General of JIM. [17] On 4.4.2023, the Director General of JIM rejected the appeal made by Messrs Nazrin & Izzat. [18] On 19.4.2023, the applicant’s wife appointed Messrs T. Harpal & Associate to submit an appeal to JIM. [19] On 12.1.2024, the applicant’s wife received an email from the Security and Passport Division of JIM, attaching a copy of a letter dated 17.11.2023 stating that the appeal for the applicant's facility was rejected. S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA Objection by the Attorney General [20] The learned Federal Counsel on behalf of the Attorney General objected to this application for leave to commence judicial review. The grounds for the Attorney General’s objection are that the judicial review is frivolous and vexatious because:

the application was filed beyond the time frame stipulated in Order 53 rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012; and

(ii) there was no prayer in the application which sought for an extension of time. The Test for Leave [21] With regard to the law applicable for leave to commence judicial review, there are numerous authorities on this point. The Federal Court in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd v. Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2012] 4 CLJ 478 expounded the test for leave to commence judicial review as reproduced below: “[12] …Without the need to go into depth of the abundant authorities, suffice if we state that leave may be granted if the leave application is not thought of as frivolous, and if leave is granted, an arguable case in favour of granting the relief sought at the substantive hearing may be the resultant outcome. A rider must be attached to the application though ie unless the matter for judicial review is amenable to judicial review absolutely no success may be envisaged.” S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA [22] The test laid down for leave to commence a judicial review in WRP Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd (supra) can be summarised as follows:

whether the subject matter is amenable to judicial review; and if so,

(ii) from the materials available, whether the application is frivolous and if not thought as frivolous and if leave is granted, consider that the applicant has an arguable case which lean towards him obtaining the relief sought at the end of substantive hearing. [23] The principles governing applications for leave to commence judicial review proceedings have also been set out in Tang Kwor Ham & Ors v. Pengurusan Danaharta Nasional Bhd & Ors [2006] 1 MLRH 507; [2006] 1 CLJ 927; [2006] 5 MLJ 60 at 69 where Gopal Sri Ram JCA (as His Lordship then was) held: “[10] …. the High Court should not go into the merits of the case at the leave stage. Its role is only to see if the application for leave is frivolous…. So too will the court be entitled to refuse leave if it is a case where the subject matter of the review is one which by settled law (either written law or the common law) is non-justiciable.” [24] The Federal Court’s decision in SIS Forum (Malaysia) v. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor; Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (Intervener) [2022] 3 MLRA 219 where Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ stated: S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA “Judicial review is a core tenet of the rule of law which is inextricably linked to the notion of constitutional supremacy in a democratic form of Government. This was because a core feature of the rule of law is the doctrine of separation of powers, a corollary to which is the concept of check and balance. Judicial review - whether constitutional review or statutory review - is a fundamental aspect of check and balance and is the vehicle through which the judicial branch of Government can perform its constitutional function visa-vis the other branches of Government. The judicial power of the Federation which includes judicial review (constitutional and statutory) is vested by constitutional design solely in the two High Courts.” [25] It is the duty of the court at this stage is to conduct a quick perusal of the material to determine whether the application is frivolous or vexatious or otherwise. Findings and Decision [26] Founded on these principles, this court will proceed to analyse this application. However, before this court considers the leave application before this court, this court will first deal with the issue of the extension of time. In this regard, reference was made to Order 53 rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012 which provides: “An application for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of application first arose or when the decision is first communicated to the applicant.” S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA [27] Order 53 rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012 specifically states that a judicial review application must be filed promptly and at the latest within three months of the date of the decision. Hence, based on this provision, the time frame for filing a judicial review application is within 3 months. [28] Pertaining to the time frame for filing an application for judicial review, the Federal Court in the case of Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v. Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2010] 3 MLJ 145 held: “the stringent conditions imposed by Order 53 of the RHC are intended to protect those entrusted with the enforcement of public duties against groundless harassment and to reduce delays in resolving applications in the interest of good administration. In the instant case, the appellant was clearly handicapped, inter alia, through limitation of time, in applying for judicial review under Order 53 rule 3(6) (see paras 15–16); O’Reilly v. Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 followed.” [29] Reference is further made to the case of Menteri Besar Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur v. Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd [2010] 4 MLJ 360 where the Court of Appeal held as follows: “[16] The High Court in its judgment was of the view that the 40 days specified under O.53 r. 3(6) was not rigid. I am of the view the judge erred in ruling that the time frame prescribed by the rules is not rigid. I am in agreement with the appellant's counsel that compliance with the time frame prescribed by the rules is fundamental as it goes to jurisdiction (See Mersing Omnibus Co. Sdn S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA Bhd v. The Minister of Labour & Manpower & Anor [1983] 2 CLJ 7; [1983] CLJ (Rep) 266). [Emphasis added] [30] Founded on the cases quoted above, it is clear that the provisions of Order 53 rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012 must be adhered to strictly. [31] Based on Applicant’s Statement in Enclosure 2 (“Statement”), applicant contended that the impugned decision was communicated to him on 28.10.2021. Whereas, the applicant’s Affidavit in Support in Enclosure 4 (“Affidavit in Support”), stated that impugned decision was communicated to him on 22.11.2021. [32] Hence, there is before this court, according to documents filed by the applicant, two different dates. Nonetheless, the application to challenge the impugned decision which was filed on 29.3.2023. Even if this court were to consider the later date of 22.11.2021 as the date the decision was communicated to the applicant, the applicant would still not have met the required 3 months’ timeline provided in Order 53 rule 3(6) of the ROC 2012. [33] It is clear and evident there is a delay in filing of this application for judicial review. [34] Nonetheless, Order 53 rule 3(7) of the ROC 2012 then goes on to state: “The Court may, upon an application, extend the time specified in rule 3(6) and if it considers that there is a good reason for doing so. Hence, the court may grant an extension of time of the S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA time specified in rule 3 (6) and if the court considers there is good reason.” [Emphasis added] [35] In order for this court to consider Order 53 rule 3(7) of the ROC 2012, there must be before this court an application to abridge time or for an extension of time. There is currently, before this court, no such application, which renders this court unable to allow an extension of time to file this application to commence judicial review proceedings. [See: Ketua Pengarah Hasil Dalam Negeri v. Alcatel-Lucent Malaysia Sdn Bhd & Anor [2017] 2 CLJ 1; [2017] 1 MLJ 563; Mersing Omnibus Co Sdn Bhd v. Minister of Labour and Manpower & Anor [1983] CLJ Rep 266; [1983] 2 MLJ 54] Conclusion [36] For the aforementioned reasons, specifically that this application to commence judicial review is time barred, and that there is no application for abridgement of time before this court, this application to commence judicial review is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Date: 4 July 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA Counsel: For the applicant: Low Carmen Tetuan T. Harpal & Associates Advocates & Solicitors No. M3-B-5, Jalan Pandan Indah 4/3A, Pandan Indah, 55100 Kuala Lumpur. harpal.legal@gmail.com +6 034292 7799 For the respondent: Safiyyah Omar Bahagian Guaman, Jabatan Peguam Negara No. 45, Persiaran Perdana Presint 4, 62100 Putrajaya +6 03 8872 2000 S/N Hg6o41gimkeoveMYnUuoZA