Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2026

BISHWAKARMA SANTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCA 187
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV423/2025

Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any viable ground to reverse the judge’s dismissal of leave: the judge adequately identified and addressed the grounds, there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision, and the lack of continuous legal/interpretation assistance did not amount to unfairness given established principles and the oral hearing that took place.
19 Nov 2025

NOVIYANTI EVA alias NOVIANTI EVA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5634
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1845/2023

The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant no longer required non-refoulement protection and had been removed, rendering any grant of leave otiose; the application to withdraw was refused and the court amended the putative respondent and putative interested party names.
8 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL108/2011

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, under section 37ZF, his torture/non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn on departure, so any judicial review would serve no practical purpose.
29 Aug 2025

DOAN THI HUYEN v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3898
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1295/2025

Detention for 147 days was lawful because there was prima facie statutory authority, the Director/Secretary acted diligently to effect removal including obtaining a replacement travel document, pending HCAL 689/2022 constituted a bona fide legal impediment outside the Director's control likely to delay removal, and the applicant's prior absconding and risk of reoffending outweighed offers of guarantors and undertakings making continued detention reasonable.
12 Aug 2025

ARISANTI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1059/2025

Detention was lawful because the Director had lawful authority, demonstrated intention and diligence to remove the applicant, and the primary cause of the delay (need for an emergency travel document) was attributable to the applicant's refusal to cooperate; therefore, under s32(4A) and relevant authorities the 267-day detention remained reasonable and lawful.
29 May 2025

ISLAM MD ASHRAFUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2025] HKCA 431
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV435/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law error or procedural unfairness; the Board's findings that risks were localized, involved non-state actors, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were open to the Board on the evidence; the new Bengali document would not have altered the factual matrix.
11 Mar 2025

AKTER JESMIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 821
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL317/2017

Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare and lacked necessary particulars, there was no reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness demonstrated in the Director's or Board's decisions, and the Board's findings on credibility, the absence of political motive, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation were not irrational; thus no prospect of success for judicial review.
2 Dec 2024

SUKHPAL SINGH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1686/2024

Detention remains lawful because removal is practicable and the principal cause of delay is the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities; self‑induced delay should not be treated as rendering a previously lawful detention unlawful, and medical and other circumstances do not outweigh justification for continued detention.
24 Oct 2024

RE MISNGATIN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 961
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP22/2023

Extension of time to appeal refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and unexplained and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Board's or Deputy Judge's decisions.
24 Oct 2024

RE GURUNG DILKUMAR

Citation

[2024] HKCA 950
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP549/2022

The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's seven-day delay, though short, related to an intended appeal that was wholly without merit and had no realistic prospect of success; the Deputy Judge properly considered the applicant's reasons and there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision.