Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Immigration removal

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2024

RASHID ZAFAR GHORI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2299/2023

Detention is lawful and not unreasonable: the Director/Secretary have acted with diligence to effect removal, much of the prolonged detention was substantially caused by the applicant's own conduct including belated pursuit of a Subsequent Claim, there is a real risk of absconding and reoffending, medical and familial factors carry little weight, travel documentation issues have been managed, and therefore under section 32(4A) the period of detention is reasonable; the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
14 Mar 2019

ALIM BADSHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 620
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1585/2018

Leave for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success: the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings under s37ZD were sustainable, the applicant failed to establish substantial grounds for torture/CIDTP or BOR Article 2/3 risks, and state protection/relocation were viable; alleged procedural unfairness was not substantiated by evidence and the applicant in court disclaimed complaints about the process.
18 Jan 2001

HUANG BINGZHI v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUANG BINGZHI v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1718/2000

The White Card was merely an administrative acknowledgement and not a written notice effecting an extension of stay; the applicant had not completed seven years ordinary residence because periods as a Government-imported contract worker are excluded under s.2(4)(v); the Director's decisions that the applicant lacked right of abode and should be removed were lawful, rational and procedurally regular, so judicial review was dismissed.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3380/1993

Given the substantial public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with all relevant evidence and the reasonable prospect that the respondents could give evidence within the next 12 weeks, the judge exercised his discretion to grant detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993), finding that the necessity for the administration of justice outweighed the respondents' liberty interests in the circumstances.

Hong Kong Case Law

RASHID ZAFAR GHORI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

ALIM BADSHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

HUANG BINGZHI v. IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE