Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal/deportation

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2025

ABBAS SADAQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2071/2025

Detention held lawful and reasonable: Director demonstrated intent and reasonable diligence to effect removal, delay attributable to applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with travel/document and repatriation arrangements may be excluded when assessing unlawfulness, and the applicant's conviction, absconding history and real risk of absconding or re-offending justify continued detention; habeas corpus dismissed.
14 Oct 2025

AHMED SIDDIQUE v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1805/2025

Detention for 134 days remained lawful because the Director acted diligently to effect removal and to expedite the pending JR leave application, the expected delay was not caused by authorities but in part by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities, and risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention pending resolution of the JR leave application.
19 Sept 2025

HASSAN NASER ABDIRAHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1555/2025

The detention is lawful because the Director acted with diligence to secure removal, the only effective impediment is the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate in obtaining a travel document, and the 347-day period is reasonable when weighed against significant risks of absconding and reoffending and the applicant-caused delay.
29 Aug 2025

NGUYEN XUANDAO 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

[2025] HKCFI 3877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL317/2023

The court accepted the applicant's sworn statements that he was safe to return and wished to do so voluntarily, concluded the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, and therefore granted the application to withdraw permission and revoked the permission to apply for judicial review.
6 Aug 2025

DEWEY ALICE SITO v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3522
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1486/2025

The court dismissed the habeas corpus application and held detention lawful: the Director intended deportation and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain a travel document, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate caused the delay in removal and therefore the detention period remained reasonable under s.32(4A) and applicable case law, and the real risk of absconding justified continued detention; medical and safety complaints did not outweigh these factors.
20 Mar 2025

VU VAN GIANG 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

[2025] HKCFI 1098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1241/2022

The court granted the applicant's sworn application to withdraw the permission application because the applicant acted voluntarily, understood withdrawal could lead to the administrative decision remaining final and to potential removal, and explicitly wished to return; therefore permission to apply for judicial review was withdrawn.
13 Mar 2025

HAYAT SIKANDAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL412/2025

Detention was lawful and not unreasonable: a valid removal order and statutory power supported detention; the Director demonstrated reasonable diligence in seeking an emergency travel document and prioritising determination of the JR; the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities and the real risks of absconding and re-offending arising from his serious robbery conviction justified continued detention; periods of detention caused by the applicant's own conduct cannot be treated as rendering detention unlawful; on balance 140 days was reasonable under s.32(4A).
5 Mar 2025

AKINBOBOLA IDOWU ALEXANDRA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 921
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2490/2024

The applicant's detention of 825 days remained lawful because the Director acted with diligence to effect removal, the primary delays derived from the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities and active resistance to removal operations, and the risk of absconding justified continued detention under the statutory factors; accordingly habeas corpus application dismissed.
19 Nov 2024

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

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL747/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had departed Hong Kong and s37ZF treats a claimant's departure as a deemed withdrawal of the torture/non-refoulement claim, rendering the application moot and there being no substantive grounds to challenge the Board's decision.
19 Nov 2024

ARIF MUHAMMAD HASEEB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3130
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL464/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had left Hong Kong and under section 37ZF the torture/non-refoulement claim is deemed withdrawn, leaving no live controversy and no practical purpose in granting relief; the applicant raised no arguable public law ground to justify intervention.