24 Mar 2026
Detention was lawful and reasonable because removal was possible within a reasonable time, delay was a practical impediment caused by the applicant's refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities, and the applicant's family circumstances did not outweigh the justification for continued detention under the Immigration Ordinance and applicable case law.
23 Feb 2026
The detention was lawful and not rendered unlawful by its duration because the removal order was valid, the Director had acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal (identity verification, passport issuance, scheduled flight), the Applicant's repeated refusal to cooperate materially delayed removal and such delay is excluded from the assessment of unreasonableness, the risk of absconding and lack of local ties supported continued detention, and medical and family considerations did not outweigh these factors; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
13 Feb 2026
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.
3 Feb 2026
The detention was lawful and not rendered unreasonable because the Director and Secretary acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, there was no legal impediment to removal, and the Applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate (coupled with his convictions and absconding history) justified continued detention; accordingly the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
5 Jan 2026
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.
22 Dec 2025
The habeas corpus application is dismissed because the Director had a clear intention to deport, acted with reasonable diligence to obtain re‑entry/ETD, the 225‑day detention was not unreasonable in all circumstances, and a substantial part of the detention was caused or prolonged by the applicant's own uncooperative conduct and prior delay; additionally the applicant posed a real risk of re‑offending or absconding given his convictions and history, so release on recognizance was not warranted.
27 Oct 2025
The detention was lawful and remained reasonable under s32(3) read with s32(4A) because the respondents acted with diligence to remove the applicant, the extended period is attributable mainly to the applicant's own conduct and belated litigation (HCAL 2099/2025) used to delay removal, and there were real risks of absconding and reoffending; therefore the habeas corpus application is dismissed and the legal aid stay was lifted to permit prompt hearing.
16 Sept 2025
Detention was and remains lawful because the Director has acted diligently to effect removal, a valid travel document has been issued, the subsequent claim is a last-minute delay tactic being processed expeditiously, and objective risks of absconding and (re)offending justify continued detention; accordingly 176 days is reasonable under s32(4A) and Hardial Singh principles.
28 Aug 2025
The detention was lawful and remains reasonable because the Director and Secretary acted diligently to effect removal, a travel document was issued and a repatriation flight arranged, and material risks of absconding and (re)offending justified continued detention; the applicant’s limited cooperation and conduct did not render detention unlawful.
26 Aug 2025
Application dismissed because detention under s.32(3A) IO remained lawful: the Director intended deportation, acted with reasonable diligence to obtain a re-entry travel document, the period (107 days) was reasonable in all circumstances, and the applicant's refusal to cooperate and his risk of absconding/re-offending justified continued detention.