Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Habeas corpus

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

SALMAN KHALIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL588/2026

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the court refuses to extend time: the delay (about nine months) is significant, the explanation (lost documents) is insufficient when the applicant knew of the Deportation Order and could have sought assistance, there is potential prejudice to proper administration in late challenges to deportation, and the proposed grounds lack any reasonably arguable public law basis since the Deportation Order falls squarely within s20(1)(a) Cap 115 and prior non-refoulement and appeal proceedings do not create a legal impediment t…
13 Mar 2026

GURDEEP SINGH v. SECRETARY OF SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL59/2026

Detention was lawful and not rendered unreasonable: the Director intended and acted to effect removal with reasonable diligence; significant part of delay was caused by the applicant's own unreasonable conduct (late filing, insisting on an oral hearing contrary to s.37ZT(2)); and risk of absconding/re‑offending given his conviction history and conduct justified continued detention; accordingly habeas corpus application dismissed.
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…
13 Feb 2026

NARASINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE KUSHAN P. N. v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2449/2025

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.
6 Feb 2026

BENARD MUGISHA BGOYA v. SECRETARY OF SECURITY

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 852
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2697/2025

The Deportation Order was valid; the Director has demonstrated lawful authority to detain the applicant under s.32 pending deportation, has acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, the detention period to date (112 days) is reasonable given imminent repatriation and the applicant's lack of cooperation which would otherwise prolong removal, and there is a real risk of absconding/re-offending; accordingly the detention remains lawful and the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
5 Feb 2026

MOHAMMED AFSAR ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 830
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2369/2025

Detention remains lawful and not unreasonable because it is authorized by s32(3A), the applicant repeatedly refused to cooperate with reentry formalities so removal was impeded by his conduct, the RPO establishes that further litigation cannot be relied upon to delay removal, and the risk of absconding persists despite the length of detention; therefore the habeas corpus application is dismissed and costs awarded.
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.
30 Jan 2026

SUKHBIR SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 504
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL512/2020

Refusal to extend time because the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the roughly five‑month delay and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board's and prior Court's decisions demonstrated no legal error, unfairness or irrationality.
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.
13 Jan 2026

NGUYEN VAN THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1023/2020

The applicant’s summons was a mistaken application for habeas corpus which the court found to be beyond the scope of the proceedings before it; accordingly the court made no order on the summons.