Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right of abode

Legal area

Court

5 Mar 2026

LI MENGZHI v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 246
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV430/2023

Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the applicant's one-way permit was invalid ab initio due to the marriage being void, that vitiated permission to land making her landing unlawful for purposes of ordinary residence under the IO, and the proportionality argument either is not an independent ground of review in this context or is inapplicable because the Tribunal had no discretion to confer right of abode; grounds advanced were therefore unarguable.
13 Nov 2025

AARON SMITH CHINONSO JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5214
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1360/2020

The application for extension of time to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no prospect of success: the applicant failed to identify grounds of appeal, raised a new unpleaded family ground without evidence, and the legal principle that a child's right of abode does not entitle a parent to remain applies; therefore no extension of time should be granted.
11 Nov 2025

ZHAO HONG CORA v. REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1322/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because the Tribunal reasonably found on the available evidence, including SPPSD correspondence, that the Applicant had concealed her divorce and was ineligible for the OWP such that permission to land was obtained by deception and vitiated, rendering her period of residence not ordinary for the seven-year requirement and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
30 Jul 2025

STEWART MARCUS JONATHAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1673
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL256/2022

The court held that a former HKPR who holds the statutory right to land under s2AAA IO is a person who, at the time of consideration of a deportation order, has the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong for the purposes of section 11 BORO; accordingly BOR 19 was engaged and the Secretary/Director were required to take the Applicant's family rights into account by applying a proportionality assessment. Applying that test to the facts, the court found the Decision proportionate and lawful and therefore dismissed the substantive judicial review and upheld the Deportation Order.
7 Feb 2025

STEWART MARCUS JONATHAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 595
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL256/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review granted solely on the arguable point that the interaction of s11 of the BORO, BOR 19 and s2AAA of the Immigration Ordinance may require a proportionality assessment of interference with family life when considering a deportation order; all other grounds were not reasonably arguable and are refused.
15 Jan 2025

SAEED UR REHMAN v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1932/2024

Leave to apply for judicial review refused because there were no reasonably arguable public law grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Deportation Order was lawfully made under s20(1)(a) Immigration Ordinance, the applicant was given opportunity to make representations which were considered, family hardship did not render the decision unlawful or Wednesbury-unreasonable, and the outstanding ROPT appeal did not bar removal.
14 Dec 2023

LI MENGZHI v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1513/2023

The court held that because the applicant landed on the strength of a one-way permit that was invalid (the underlying marriage was void ab initio), her landing must be treated as unlawful for the purposes of ordinary residence; the Tribunal was entitled to find the OWP invalid and to assess right of abode afresh, and neither the applicant's innocence nor claims of legitimate expectation, compassionate grounds, delay, fettering or irrationality could bring her within the statutory category for right of abode, so leave for judicial review was refused.
14 Apr 2023

李榮歡 v. 人事登記審裁處

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 838
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1377/2022

The Tribunal validly concluded the applicant was not a right of abode holder because the Mainland authority (GPPSD) concluded he was ineligible by 2003, which meant the permission to land was obtained under a false representation and therefore the landing was unlawful and the subsequent residence could not count as 7 years' ordinary residence; the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and leave is refused.
13 Apr 2023

MAGAR JAMUNA JARGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL65/2021

Both applications were dismissed/refused because the challenges were either overtaken by events or plainly out of time with no adequate explanation for delay; the Form 86/affirmation failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds; reconsideration does not cure the time bar; and the applicant failed to prosecute after obtaining interim relief, warranting refusal of leave and an award of costs to the Director.
18 Jan 2023

RAI CHHABIKALA v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for an on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1370/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Tribunal's Decision contained adequate reasons and legitimate factual findings that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to HK permanent residency under Schedule 1 (insufficient evidence of rightful holder of HK birth certificate, of father's HKPR status, and lack of requisite ordinary residence); there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant's delay (two months beyond the 3‑month limit) was not satisfactorily explained or excused by legal aid application, so the out‑of‑time leave was refused…