Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deportation/removal

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

NGUYEN THI DIEP 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL967/2022

The court granted the applicant's request to withdraw her permission application because the applicant's sworn statement established that the withdrawal was voluntary, informed and based on material change (debts resolved and no longer at risk), and the applicant understood that the appeal committee's decision would become final and binding; accordingly the permission application was revoked.
19 Aug 2025

SULALAH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1463/2025

Detention was lawful and remains lawful because the Director and Secretary acted with diligence to effect removal, the legal impediment was resolved, the primary cause of delay is the applicant's refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (including refusal to attend interview), and there exists a real risk of absconding and possible reoffending; asserted medical complaints did not establish inability to receive proper treatment in detention.
12 Aug 2025

ABU SAIYED SUMON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3592
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1185/2025

The detention was lawful and remains lawful because removal was intended and feasible, there was no legal impediment to removal, the primary cause of delay (the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities) is self-induced and may be excluded when assessing unlawfulness, medical care is available, and there are real risks of absconding and reoffending; on balance the period of detention (273 days) is reasonable under s32(4A).
22 Aug 2023

UDDIN MOHAMMED NAZIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1347/2023

The Director/Secretary met the burden to justify continued detention: detention was authorised by statute, the Director acted diligently to obtain travel documentation and arrange repatriation, a travel permit was issued and removal was imminent; the applicant's non-cooperation increased the risk of absconding; medical care was available—therefore the period of detention (197 days) remained lawful and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

NGUYEN THI DIEP 對 酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]

SULALAH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

ABU SAIYED SUMON v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

UDDIN MOHAMMED NAZIM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

NGUYEN THI DIEP 對酷刑聲請上訴委員會／免遣返聲請呈請辦事處 [Decision on Leave Application]