Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deportation

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2026

BUI THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2019
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL103/2026

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had left Hong Kong and, under Section 37ZF of the Immigration Ordinance, the torture/non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn on departure including pending judicial review proceedings, so granting relief would serve no practical purpose.
30 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL386/2026

The leave application was refused because the delay in filing was grossly inordinate and the applicant's explanations (belief he could obtain a Hong Kong identity card, lack of funds, late legal aid application) were not genuine or reasonable; given the excessive delay and lack of credible explanation or particularised fresh evidence, extension of time was not justified and leave was refused.
24 Mar 2026

AAMAR ALI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1691
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2834/2025

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.
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…
6 Feb 2026

MIA AKASH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL67/2020

Leave refused because the applicant's grounds were generic, templated and lacked particulars demonstrating any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB's comprehensive assessment; the TCAB's conclusion that the matter was a private dispute and that internal relocation was available was not shown to be unreasonable and did not attract judicial review intervention.
3 Feb 2026

ALI QASIM v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 808
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2855/2025

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.
17 Dec 2025

NAVARRO RHEA JOY PANIERGO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2194/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant's grounds were bare, vague and lacking necessary particulars; the Director and the Board lawfully assessed the risk as low, identified state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness was demonstrated; the Applicant also filed an affidavit withdrawing the claim and confirming no obstacle to return, eliminating any prospect of success.
15 Dec 2025

PRAWIT YUSUK v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6259
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2063/2025

Detention was lawful and remains reasonable because removal was practicable within a reasonable time, the primary delay was caused by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities, and there were real risks of absconding and reoffending; applying s32(4A), Harjang Singh and Johnson Benjamin the 211‑day detention did not become unlawful.
31 Oct 2025

FERNANDO LOPEZ LOPEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5220
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2136/2025

The detention is lawful and reasonable: the deportation order is valid; the Secretary and Director have acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and effect removal; the applicant's prolonged detention is attributable to his own unreasonable refusal to cooperate and delayed pursuit of NRC, and there is a real risk of absconding and re-offending, so the detention did not become unlawful and the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
27 Oct 2025

ISRAR AHMED KIYANI alias MOHAMMAD ISRAR KIYANI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5120
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1747/2025

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.