Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal and deportation

Legal area

Court

30 Mar 2026

FAHEEM CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL60/2026

Detention was lawful and not rendered unlawful by its duration because it was authorised by the Immigration Ordinance, there was no legal impediment to removal, the Secretary and Director acted with reasonable diligence, and the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with obtaining travel documentation was the primary cause of delay which cannot be used to render an otherwise lawful detention unlawful; risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention.
27 Mar 2026

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

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1577
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL577/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full and frank disclosure in Form 86, the Board's adverse credibility findings were factual and not amenable to interference absent public law error, and no reasonably arguable public law errors were demonstrated; the court amended Form 86 to correct respondent designations.
11 Feb 2026

KAMMALAGE ANURA FERNANDO v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 918
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2374/2025

The detention was lawful and not unreasonable because removal was being actively pursued, the only practical impediment was the need for a travel document which could have been issued but for the Applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities, and there existed a real absconding risk and lack of local ties; therefore the period of detention was properly attributable to the Applicant and lawful under s32(4A) and established case law.
4 Dec 2025

SUKHBIR SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5908
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2002/2025

The court holds the Applicant's detention is and remains lawful because the Respondents discharged the burden to show detention was reasonable under section 32(4A): removal was being pursued diligently, delay was principally caused by the Applicant's refusal to cooperate in reentry formalities, there was a real risk of absconding and reoffending, and habeas corpus is not the forum to relitigate the non-refoulement claim; therefore the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
18 Nov 2025

KHUC NGOC HIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2001/2025

The applicant's detention was and remains lawful because the Director and Secretary pursued removal with diligence, the delay to removal was substantially attributable to the applicant's own legal actions and refusal to cooperate, and objective risks (absconding, potential reoffending) together with lack of local ties justify continued detention of 174 days and foreseeable future.
12 Nov 2025

KHOIRUL NURKHASANAH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5477
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2173/2025

Detention was lawful and continued detention was reasonable: the Director had a valid removal order, acted with reasonable diligence in seeking and obtaining a travel document and arranging a removal flight, and the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with travel document formalities meant the extended detention was caused by her conduct and did not render an otherwise lawful detention unlawful; additionally there was a real risk of absconding given her history.
11 Aug 2025

SHOMAN ABU ZAFOR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1113/2025

The detention remained lawful because there was prima facie authority to detain, the Director/Secretary acted with diligence to effect removal, the principal cause of delay was the applicant's own refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (self-induced delay which the case law excludes from counting as unreasonable), and risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention under s32(4A) of the Immigration Ordinance; medical issues and a guarantor did not outweigh those factors.
6 Jun 2025

VU DINH PHUONG v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL767/2025

The Applicant's detention remains lawful because removal was and is being actively pursued, practical impediments were resolved (travel document issued), the most recent failure to effect removal resulted from the Applicant's deliberate resistance to boarding (a tactical maneuver to delay deportation), and the risk of absconding together with absence of other circumstances favouring release outweighs the Applicant's offers and assurances; therefore the detention period is reasonable under s32(4A) and relevant authorities (Harjang Singh and Johnson Benjamin).
20 Mar 2025

NGUYEN VAN THUY v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL34/2025

The detention was and will remain lawful because the period of detention (232 days) was reasonable in all the circumstances: lawful authority existed throughout; the Director/Secretary acted with diligence to effect removal; delays were largely caused by the applicant's own unwillingness to return and by his commencement of proceedings; risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention; medical care was available; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed as HS1, HS2 and HS3 were satisfied.
24 Dec 2024

AMARJIT v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1854/2024

Detention remained lawful because the Director acted with diligence to procure removal, the primary delays were attributable to the applicant (late challenges and persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities), the applicant's serious criminal history and risk of absconding posed a public safety concern, medical needs were being met in detention, and under s32(4A) and binding authorities (Harjang Singh; Johnson Benjamin) the period of detention of 320 days was reasonable in all the circumstances.