Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal order

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2026

BEYDOU MAGAGI SEYBOU v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2519/2025

Detention of the applicant for 666 days remained lawful because removal remained imminent, there was no legal impediment to removal caused by respondents, and a substantial part of the delay was attributable to the applicant's own conduct (refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities, making a subsequent non-refoulement claim and failing to commence family proceedings despite legal aid); the court applied Harjang Singh and Johnson Benjamin principles to exclude time caused by the applicant's behaviour and found that risks of absconding, reoffending and public safety justified continued deten…
5 Feb 2026

RAHMAN MD SHEIKH MOJIBUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 754
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL170/2026

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify the relief sought and any reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success; that failure is fatal to the grant of leave.
13 Jan 2026

IMAM HOSSAIN KHAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2631/2025

The detention under s.32(3A) Immigration Ordinance for 191 days was lawful and reasonable: the Director acted with reasonable diligence to obtain a travel document, the applicant's persistent non-cooperation and prior absconding materially delayed removal and created a real risk of absconding, and time attributable to the applicant's conduct should not render the detention unlawful; application for habeas corpus dismissed.
6 Jan 2026

TIEU VAN THUYET v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2171/2025

Detention remained lawful because the sole practical impediment (lack of travel document) was removed by issuance of a replacement travel document and a repatriation flight was arranged; the applicant's prior absconding and expressed unwillingness to return created a real risk of absconding that outweighed the availability of a guarantor; the pending subsequent claim did not create a legal impediment to removal; and medical issues did not alter lawfulness. Accordingly the period of detention was not unreasonable under s32(4A) and applicable authorities.
15 Dec 2025

GAO JIE acting by her next friend QU MENGPING v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1082
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV315/2024

Reading the CIES Rules together with the Immigration Department Guidelines, an applicant for CIES approval and any entrant seeking extensions must satisfy normal immigration requirements which include holding a valid travel document with adequate returnability to the country of residence or citizenship (VTD Requirement); Guidelines are part of the applicable policy and new factual or legal arguments not raised below are inadmissible on appeal.
25 Aug 2025

MOHAMMED AFSAR ALI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3840
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1103/2025

The applicant's detention for 323 days remained lawful because the Director pursued removal with diligence, the applicant's own non-cooperation and prior absconding rendered additional detention reasonable under s32(4A), the subsequent claim did not create a legal impediment to removal absent acceptance under the statutory scheme, and the legal aid stay was properly lifted to avoid frustrating habeas corpus relief.
13 Aug 2025

PASCUAL JIM LEO OMAGING v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3640
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1026/2025

The detention was and remains lawful because, weighing the 208‑day period against the statutory factors and circumstances, the Director/Secretary acted with diligence to effect removal, the legal impediment has been removed, the detainee poses real risks of absconding and reoffending and has been uncooperative regarding local contacts, and there is no evidence that detention conditions or medical issues render the detention unlawful; accordingly the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
3 Jul 2025

KARTININGSIH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1215/2025

Detention held lawful and the habeas corpus application dismissed because the removal order was valid, the Director had acted with reasonable diligence to secure travel documents, the applicant repeatedly refused to cooperate thereby causing or prolonging delay which s.32(4A) allows to be treated as reasonable, and there was a real risk of absconding outweighing the applicant's countervailing factors.
3 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. NAJAM, SHERAZ

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4193
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA146/2025

The Magistrate correctly applied s67A CPO: only the 60 days of detention immediately prior to first appearance and connected to the offence is deductible; earlier administrative/judicial detentions dating back over a decade and unrelated to the offence are not deductible absent exceptional circumstances and none existed here; the 15 months' sentence on guilty plea accords with authority and is not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is 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.