Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention pending removal

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2026

NARASINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE KUSHAN P. N. v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2449/2025

Detention was lawful because there was a clear intention and diligent effort to remove the applicant, no legal impediment existed, and the delay was caused by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities; such self-induced delay cannot render the otherwise lawful detention unreasonable, and family circumstances did not outweigh those considerations.
5 Jan 2026

MANE HAMIROU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 104
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2576/2025

Detention was lawful and reasonable: the Director intended deportation, acted with reasonable diligence and expedition to secure travel documentation, the applicant's long history of convictions, prior absconding and consistent refusal to cooperate created a real risk of absconding/re‑offending, and the period attributable to the applicant's own uncooperative conduct cannot render otherwise lawful detention unlawful; accordingly habeas corpus dismissed.
16 Sept 2025

YESI KRISTINA AYU INDRASWARI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1265/2025

Detention was lawful and proportionate because the Director acted diligently to remove the applicant, practical delay was substantially caused by the applicant's refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (including refusal to attend consular interview), an emergency travel document was obtained, and there remained real risks of absconding and reoffending; under s32(4A) and relevant authorities the 272-day detention was reasonable in all circumstances.
15 Sept 2025

GIRI RADHE SHYAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4300
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1801/2025

Detention was lawful and reasonable: the Director intended and diligently pursued removal, the prolonged detention was substantially caused by the applicant's refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities and delay in pursuing judicial review leave, and the assessed risk of absconding and re-offending outweighed factors favouring release; accordingly habeas corpus application dismissed.
27 Aug 2025

GURUNG GOVINDA v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1516/2025

The detention of the applicant for 224 days was lawful and reasonable: the Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documentation and effect removal; delays were directly or indirectly caused by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry/travel-document formalities and such detainee-caused periods are not to be treated as rendering detention unreasonable; ongoing appellate or non-refoulement proceedings did not constitute a legal impediment to removal under prevailing policy; therefore habeas corpus application dismissed.
4 Jul 2025

LE VAN TAI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1191/2025

Detention was lawful because the Secretary/Director intended to deport the applicant and acted with reasonable diligence; removal was practicable within a reasonable time given the applicant's valid travel document and scheduled flight, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate and his criminal history created a real risk of absconding/re‑offending which justified continued detention, and delays attributable to the applicant are not counted against reasonableness under the Hardial Singh principles; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
17 Jun 2025

TRAN TRONG DAI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2545
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1027/2025

The detention was lawful because the removal and deportation orders were valid, the Director acted with reasonable diligence and expedition (identity verification, securing travel document and arranging a repatriation flight within a reasonable time), there were no legal impediments to removal, the applicant's unwillingness to return and criminal history created a real risk of absconding and re-offending, and periods of detention attributable to the applicant's conduct should not render an otherwise reasonable detention unlawful; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
29 May 2025

NGUYEN HONG VU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2274
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL876/2025

The detention was lawful and not unreasonable: a valid removal order was in force, the Director had acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and progress removal, the Applicant's own delays and uncooperative conduct contributed to and prolonged detention and so should not be counted against the lawfulness, and there was a real risk of absconding given prior absconding and unwillingness to return; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
26 May 2025

SITI NURJANAH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL543/2025

Detention was lawful because the respondents acted with diligence and expedition to effect removal, the remaining delay was caused by the applicant's refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (including attendance at a consular interview to obtain a replacement travel document), and under s32(4A) and authorities such conduct may be taken into account so that the 236-day detention was not unreasonable.
24 Apr 2025

RUBEL SHEIKH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1725
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL701/2025

Detention under s.32(3A) of the Immigration Ordinance was lawful and proportionate because there was a valid removal order, active steps were taken to secure travel documents and consular cooperation, and part of any delay was attributable to the applicant's earlier refusal to cooperate; risks of re-offending and absconding and lack of fixed abode justified continued detention pending removal.