17 Mar 2026
Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; absent viable, particularised grounds the Court will not interfere with the Judge's decision or re-examine the Board's merits.
10 Feb 2026
Appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; the Court will not substitute its view for the Board's factual assessments absent viable, particularised legal grounds.
29 May 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Director's earlier decision was superseded by the Board's decision and not subject to review; the Board applied Article 2 HKBORO correctly and its decision met the applicable Wednesbury standard, so no reasonably arguable ground existed.
10 Oct 2024
Leave was granted because the Director, when refusing permission to bring a subsequent non‑refoulement claim, failed to comply with the procedural requirements derived from Paposhvili and related authorities by inadequately addressing relevant country‑of‑origin information and the accessibility of necessary medical treatment to the Applicant; that failure made the decision reasonably arguable and justified grant of leave for judicial review.
8 May 2020
The ex parte dismissal was set aside on acceptable explanation for absence, but leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularize grounds and demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the Board's adverse factual findings were rational and supported by the evidence and the Director's conduct (including discretion not to re-screen for BOR 2) did not disclose reviewable error.
23 Jan 2020
The applicant's grounds lacked any arguable public law point or question of great general or public importance; the alleged procedural deficiencies did not amount to unfairness given prior Duty Lawyer assistance and the applicant's use of English documents; the short delay did not justify extension because the intended appeal had no prospect of success; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
18 Jan 2019
The Court found the applicant's proposed grounds were vague and unparticularised, the Director and the Board lawfully and fairly concluded the risk was private and localized with available state protection and internal relocation options, and there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness; therefore there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.