Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repatriation

Legal area

Court

8 Jan 2026

TRAN VAN LONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 36
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL599/2025

Extension of time refused and summons dismissed because the delay (more than three weeks) was substantial and unexplained, the applicant failed to provide evidence of late receipt or any draft grounds demonstrating a reasonable prospect of success, the decision was properly sent to his last reported address, and the applicant has been repatriated making the appeal futile.
4 Sept 2025

VU MINH NGOC v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3806
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL993/2021

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances since his previous claim and failed to show that any change, taken with previously submitted material, would give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success in light of prior adverse findings that risk was low and state protection and internal relocation were available.
27 Jun 2024

VU THI THU HANG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1686
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL861/2022

The Director lawfully refused permission for a subsequent claim because the applicant failed to provide sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances under s37ZO, the asserted new facts did not, when combined with prior material, give a realistic prospect of success in light of prior findings of availability of state protection and internal relocation, and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; accordingly the leave application was dismissed.
28 Dec 2023

BUI NGOC LAM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1348/2020

The application was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the claim and was repatriated to Vietnam; under Section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115) a non-refoulement claim is treated as withdrawn once the claimant leaves Hong Kong, leaving no live claim for the court to decide.
18 Jul 2023

HOSSAIN AEJAZ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1864
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL993/2023

Weighing the substantial detention period (532 days) against continuous, reasonably diligent removal efforts (liaison with Indian Consulate, procurement of travel document and flight) and the applicant's contribution to delay through non-cooperation, together with the police assessment of security risk and medical interventions during periods of fasting, the court concluded continued detention was not unreasonable or unlawful and would end on repatriation; habeas corpus application dismissed.
11 May 2023

NURHAYATI RASIMAN SAMAD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2435/2020

The leave application was dismissed for want of prosecution because the Applicants were repatriated and their conduct evidenced a lack of intention to prosecute the judicial review; the withdrawal application was refused but the dismissal was appropriate on that basis.
30 Sept 2021

VANSOVYCH ANDRIY AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “STARRY METROPOLIS”

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ76/2020

Defences were bare denials lacking pleaded factual basis for their two substantive defences, the pleaded defences were legally unsustainable on the contracts and available evidence, and the pleadings were used to delay recovery of wages; accordingly the Defences disclose no reasonable defence and are an abuse of process and must be struck out.
30 Sept 2021

CHEN QUNHAO AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “STARRY METROPOLIS”

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2961
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ91/2020

Defences were struck out because they failed mandatory pleading requirements, contained only bare denials and two substantively meritless and unsubstantiated defences (misconstruction of contract re point of hire/place of repatriation and unlawful instruction to leave), thereby disclosing no reasonable defence and amounting to abuse of process; strike out was necessary to prevent unwarranted delay and to protect the crew's entitlement to unpaid wages.
3 Oct 2020

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1674/2020

Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application for leave to apply for judicial review and there was nothing outstanding in the action, the court properly dismissed the application rather than leaving the action at large, following the authority of Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
21 Sept 2020

FOUDA AYMAN ALI MAHMOUD AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2345
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL84/2019

The court dismissed the leave application because the remaining applicants had been removed from Hong Kong and pursuant to s37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance their non-refoulement claims are treated as withdrawn, leaving no live controversy to support grant of leave.