Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal/repatriation

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

DIL ISLAM HOWLADER v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2193
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL464/2026

The detention was lawful and remained lawful: a valid removal order exists, the Director has acted with reasonable diligence to secure travel documents and repatriation, delays were materially caused by the applicant's own unreasonable and uncooperative conduct (including late appeals and inconsistent willingness to return) and thus are excluded from being treated as unreasonable under s.32(4A) and Johnson Benjamin; there is a real risk of absconding and medical concerns do not render continued detention unlawful; the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
25 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1432/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and s37ZF deems the torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn on departure, so granting relief would serve no practical purpose and the application is therefore dismissed.
7 May 2020

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

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 707
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1867/2018

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant withdrew his application and was repatriated pursuant to a removal order, demonstrating no intention to prosecute the judicial review, permitting dismissal for abandonment.
5 May 1997

TRUONG DIEN v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD

Citation

TRUONG DIEN v. THE REFUGEE STATUS REVIEW BOARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL22/1997

Leave was granted because there were arguable, plausible allegations that the Board may have ignored or misinterpreted material evidence such that the decision might be unlawful; an interim injunction restraining removal was justified because removal would cause irreparable prejudice by preventing effective review and on a fine balance the applicant's arguable case and liberty interest outweighed the public interest in immediate repatriation.
10 Apr 1997

NGUYEN PHONG and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

NGUYEN PHONG and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL11/1997

The court will permit the Director to be released from prior undertakings provided an injunction is substituted restraining removal of specified applicants until their applications for leave to apply for judicial review have been determined; moreover, the appropriate practice for last-minute applications is to provide core screening papers and hold a short inter partes hearing so the court can form a provisional view whether leave is likely and grant or refuse interim relief accordingly.
28 Jan 1997

PHUNG HOAN and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another

Citation

PHUNG HOAN and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP288/1997

Leave to apply for judicial review and an injunction restraining removal were refused because the court found no arguable grounds that the Refugee Status Review Board or the Director of Immigration erred in law or reached Wednesbury unreasonable conclusions: the Board's factual findings and value judgments on whether treatment amounted to persecution were within reasonable bounds, the alleged private vendetta did not establish state-tolerated persecution, and the applicants' publicity did not create a credible sur place risk sufficient to undermine the refusal of refugee status.
15 Oct 1996

VO THI DO and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

VO THI DO and Others v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3434/1996

Although the court possessed jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief under section 21L(1) of the Supreme Court Ordinance, the application for an interim injunction preventing removal was refused because: (a) the applicants challenged decisions made many years earlier and had delayed bringing proceedings; (b) granting relief would encourage filings to frustrate removal and impede orderly repatriation; (c) the Director has a responsible policy not to remove migrants once leave is granted, protecting arguable cases; and (d) immediate logistical prejudice to the repatriation programme outweigh…
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3391/1993

Assuming valid section 13E(1) removal orders and section 32(4)(a) authorisations, the court may exercise its discretion to grant limited successive detention orders under section 32(4)(b) where the prosecution demonstrates the respondents are necessary witnesses and their continued presence is reasonably necessary for the fair trial; prolonged detention must be reasonably necessary and procedural defects that are purely formal do not defeat the substantive application. The court therefore granted further limited orders for most respondents while leaving jurisdictional challenges to be litigat…