Chinese national deported weeks after paying RM10,000 fine, lawyer seeks clarity on deportation process

12 February 2026

KOTA KINABALU: A Chinese national who pleaded guilty to overstaying in Malaysia was deported three weeks after paying a court-imposed fine, prompting his lawyer to call for clearer information on procedures governing post-sentencing deportation.

Hu Youhui, 31, was detained at Kota Kinabalu International Airport (KKIA) on 5 January 2026 while attempting to return to China. He was stopped by Immigration authorities for overstaying his permitted period of stay.

Court documents state that Hu had overstayed by approximately six months. He was subsequently remanded pending investigation under Section 15(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1959/63.

Counsel Jeremy Ho, who represented Hu, said he came on record during the remand stage and appeared in court on 16 January 2026, when the prosecution applied for an extension of the remand order. The court allowed the remand to continue until 22 January.

On 22 January, Hu was formally charged and pleaded guilty to the offence. Section 15 provides for a fine of up to RM10,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

The defence sought a fine in lieu of a custodial sentence. The court imposed a RM10,000 fine, which was paid in full on the same day by Hu’s family.

Following payment, Hu was placed at the Temporary Detention Centre in Menggatal, commonly referred to as “Rumah Merah”, pending completion of administrative arrangements related to his deportation.

He subsequently departed Malaysia on 10 February 2026 on a direct flight to Guangzhou.

Speaking at a press conference here on Wednesday, Ho said the family had hoped the return process could have been completed sooner and had indicated their readiness to purchase a return ticket once clearance was granted by the relevant authorities.

“They were prepared to bear the cost of the ticket and were awaiting confirmation of the departure arrangements,” he said.

Ho said enquiries were made with the Immigration Department to better understand the timeline and procedures involved. He was informed that departure clearance required the necessary approvals in accordance with existing processes.

He stressed that the issue raised did not concern the conviction or the sentence imposed, as Hu had admitted the offence and complied fully with the court’s order.

“The clarification we are seeking relates to the administrative process after the fine has been paid — specifically, the usual timeframe for deportation in cases where no custodial sentence is imposed,” he said.

Ho added that clearer public information on post-sentencing procedures would help families better understand the process and manage expectations in similar cases.