Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Immigration reservation

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCA 368
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP230/2024

Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was unable to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success in the intended judicial review and failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; delay was short and explanation could be accepted but prospects were determinative.
21 Sept 2020

LUBIANO NANCY ALMORIN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2020] HKCA 782
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/2018

Appeal dismissed: ICESCR article 7(b) and (d) have not been domesticated by conscious legislative implementation in the Employment Ordinance; the applicant's heightened‑risk theory is precluded by the Immigration Reservation and the ICESCR article 6 reservation and, in any event, the heightened‑risk approach is not an applicable general ground of review absent clear evidence of a significant inherent risk causally linked to the impugned immigration policy; no sufficient evidence showed the Live‑In Requirement materially increases the risk of denial of statutory rest days and s.17 EO affords t…
26 Mar 2018

LUIS, DESIREE RANTE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2018] HKCA 175
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/2016

Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance as constitutionalised by Basic Law article 39 excludes reliance on BOR/ICCPR/CRC/ICESCR in respect of immigration legislation governing entry, stay and departure; Basic Law article 37 does not confer a general right to secure residence for non-residents nor allow resident family members to override immigration controls; the Dependant Policy is dependency-based with financial sufficiency eligibility criteria properly applied; the Director did not unlawfully fetter discretion or fail to consider relevant matters; appeals dismissed.
12 Jan 2016

COMILANG, MILAGROS TECSON AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

COMILANG, MILAGROS TECSON AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL45/2014

The court held the asserted family and child-rights were not legally engaged in these immigration applications because of the immigration reservation and lack of domestic incorporation; the Director was not obliged to take ICCPR/BOR/CRC/ICESCR rights as mandatory considerations; the Director properly applied immigration policy, considered relevant material and humanitarian grounds, and did not fetter his discretion; the applications lack sufficient merit and were substantially out of time so leave was set aside and the judicial reviews dismissed or rendered academic.
12 Jan 2016

LUIS, DESIREE RANTE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LUIS, DESIREE RANTE AND OTHERS v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL56/2014

The court held the claimed fundamental rights (family right under BOR/ICCPR or Basic Law 37, best interests under CRC, ICESCR protections, or asserted common law family rights) were not legally engaged in these immigration applications because of the immigration reservation, lack of domestic incorporation or applicable construction of the Basic Law; on the alternative administrative law grounds the Director had taken relevant considerations into account and his decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the ex parte leaves were set aside and extensions of time refused for significant unexpla…
12 Jan 2016

PAGTAMA, VICTORINA ALEGRE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

PAGTAMA, VICTORINA ALEGRE AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL13/2014

The court held the asserted family and child rights were not engaged as a matter of Hong Kong law in the immigration context (immigration reservation and lack of domestic incorporation of CRC/ICESCR), the Director had lawfully exercised his wide discretion and considered relevant factors, the conventional judicial review grounds failed, and ex parte leave was set aside for substantial unexplained delay; HCAL 13 rendered academic by subsequent Directors fresh decision.
27 Nov 2012

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

FI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV47/2011

HKBORO s.11 covers immigration legislation governing entry, stay and departure including conditions of stay related to employment so appellants cannot invoke BOR/ICCPR to challenge the employment restriction; the UK reservation/notification to ICESCR article 6 modifies the ICESCR6 right so it does not secure a domestic right to work for non-permanent residents in Hong Kong; Basic Law article 33 does not confer an unqualified right to take up available employment for persons without resident status; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
27 Nov 2012

MA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

MA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV44/2011

HKBORO s.11 applies to conditions of stay including employment restrictions so appellants cannot invoke BOR/ICCPR rights to challenge the prohibition on work; the UK reservation to ICESCR6 operates as a modification excluding non-permanent residents from the ICESCR6 right to work as applied to Hong Kong; Basic Law article 33 does not create a standalone positive right to take up employment; accordingly the appeals are dismissed.
25 Jul 2012

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL89/2012

The court refused leave for judicial review and refused the habeas corpus application because the applicant failed to establish a demonstrable arguable case that deportation would expose him to a real and unavoidable risk of torture or death; the CAT assessment and the Director's consideration of state protection and relocation were lawful and the applicant's credibility was undermined, thus detention pending deportation is lawful.
25 Jul 2012

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. PERMANET SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SAFDER TEHSEEN v. PERMANET SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL75/2012

The court found no demonstrably arguable case because the CAT screening and the deportation decisions reasonably assessed the threats, credibility concerns undermined the applicant's account, and there was a realistic prospect of state protection or relocation in Pakistan; given the immigration reservation and binding authorities on family reunion claims, the deportation order and detention pending deportation were lawful.