Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deportation orders

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

JOYEL RAJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1571/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because there were no reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success: the statutory threshold under s20(1)(a) was satisfied by an offence punishable with imprisonment of not less than two years; procedural fairness was observed as representations were considered; interpreter needs were not shown to be unmet given the applicant's indicated English proficiency; detention and medical care raised no reasonably arguable public law breaches; and damages claims are more appropriately pursued in private law fora.
19 Dec 2025

NGUYEN LE HOAN v. SECRETARY OF SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6384
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2517/2025

The application for habeas corpus is dismissed because the detention, viewed under s.32(4A) and the Hardial Singh principles, remains lawful: the Director intended and acted to effect removal with reasonable diligence, the applicant's own delays and refusal to cooperate materially contributed to the detention period, the JR leave application is not a prohibitive legal impediment and is likely to be determined within a reasonable period, and the risk of absconding/reoffending arising from the applicant's convictions and lack of local ties outweighs compassionate/family considerations, so deten…
3 Oct 2025

SAMSON CLIFARD v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1937/2025

Application dismissed because detention under s.32(3) IO remained lawful and reasonable: Director and Secretary demonstrated intent to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and effect removal; applicant's repeated refusal to cooperate and his criminal and absconding history created a real risk of absconding/reoffending such that continued detention was necessary and reasonable under Hardial Singh and s.32(4A).
4 Jul 2025

LE VAN TAI v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1191/2025

Detention was lawful because the Secretary/Director intended to deport the applicant and acted with reasonable diligence; removal was practicable within a reasonable time given the applicant's valid travel document and scheduled flight, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate and his criminal history created a real risk of absconding/re‑offending which justified continued detention, and delays attributable to the applicant are not counted against reasonableness under the Hardial Singh principles; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
8 Jun 2023

ALI MAJID v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL764/2023

The application was dismissed because the Director consistently acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, removal was imminent, and the applicant's long history of absconding, repeated criminality and active non-cooperation materially contributed to the delay and created a substantial risk of absconding and reoffending; on balance a 632‑day detention remained lawful and reasonable pending the scheduled repatriation.
23 Dec 2022

SHEIKH MOHAMMOD SUBUJ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3779
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1307/2022

The application was dismissed because the court found detention lawful: the Director intended deportation, acted with reasonable diligence (including pursuing a travel document despite the applicant's non-cooperation), the applicant had caused material obstacles (late and arguably hopeless appeal application and refusal to cooperate with consulate), there was a real risk of absconding and reoffending, and detention for about eight months remained reasonable in all the circumstances.
5 Oct 2022

GURUNG SANTA BAHADUR v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3059
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL897/2022

Detention continued to be lawful because there was a sufficient and proximate prospect of removal (travel document obtained and removal flight arranged), the Secretary/Director acted with reasonable diligence to secure removal, the applicant's own delays and lack of cooperation contributed to obstacles to removal, and there remained a real and substantial risk of absconding and reoffending; balancing these factors against 669 days' detention the court held the period was reasonable under the Hardial Singh principles.
12 Aug 2022

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2472
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL707/2022

The original detention was lawful under s32(3) of the Immigration Ordinance; on balancing the Hardial Singh factors the 49‑day detention remained lawful because the Director demonstrated intent to deport, acted with reasonable diligence to remove the applicant (expedited screening board decision, sought travel documents, sought expedition of JR), there was a real though not high likelihood of security risk with potentially grave consequences and a history of failures to report increasing absconding risk, and removal was likely within a reasonable forthcoming period (approximately 3–4 months).…
13 Apr 2021

DITTA ALLAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 935
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL437/2021

The habeas corpus application was dismissed because the applicant was lawfully detained under s32(3) Immigration Ordinance and the detention complied with Hardial Singh principles given the pending judicial review constituted an obstacle to removal not caused by the Director, the authorities acted with diligence, and the risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention.
20 Jul 2015

HKSAR v. UDDIN MD MOHI

Citation

HKSAR v. UDDIN MD MOHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC434/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive given the applicant's repeated breaches of a life deportation order, prior convictions and deportations, deception to obtain residence, and the aggravating circumstance of offending while on bail; the judge's starting points, guilty plea discount and totality calculations were within proper sentencing discretion.