13 Mar 2026
The statutory USM creates a two‑tier scheme requiring an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board before resort to judicial review; the applicant did not appeal and therefore had no prospect of success in seeking leave to judicially review the Director's first‑tier decision; leave is dismissed.
11 Nov 2025
The application for leave was struck out because the applicant failed to pursue the available statutory appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and such failure constituted an abuse of process; the immigration officer's decision is not ordinarily susceptible to judicial review while the statutory two-tier appeal remains available.
4 Nov 2025
Because the applicant had not appealed the Director's Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board and an appeal to the Board is the available and appropriate remedy that would supersede the immigration officer's decision, the application for leave to apply for judicial review was an abuse of process and was struck out.
25 Jul 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed: (1) as to the Director's First Decision because the applicant had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy to the Board and had not shown special circumstances to bypass that appeal; (2) as to the Director's Second Decision because the applicant had pursued (and failed in) an appeal to the Board and the Board lawfully refused to extend time because the applicant did not notify a change of address and the merits did not justify extension; and (3) as to the Board's Decision because there was no arguable error in the Board's exercise of discreti…
23 Dec 2022
The court refused the extension of time because the applicant offered no arguable grounds of appeal, failed to show reasons for delay amounting to circumstances beyond her control, had not exhausted the statutory appeal route to the Torture Claims Appeal Board under s 37ZR(a), and there was no prospect of success for the intended appeal.
10 May 2022
The application for leave was refused because the applicant’s complaints misconceive judicial procedure, primarily challenge factual findings not suitable for judicial review, lack any substantiating evidence of forgery or abuse, and the applicant has available appeal routes; the leave application therefore has no arguable prospect of success and is an inappropriate use of judicial review.
5 Jun 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because there was no decision by the CTC amenable to judicial review (the letter was informational and non‑determinative) and the applicant had not exhausted alternative remedies (private civil or charity proceedings are the appropriate forum); accordingly the court declined to compel the CTC to act.
3 Apr 2019
This was a case management decision: while the court is more ready to order rolled-up hearings in appropriate cases to promote procedural economy, the complexity and need to determine preliminary issues (jurisdiction/amenability under Article 63, standing, exhaustion of alternative remedies and arguability) meant a preliminary oral hearing on leave should be held first; accordingly the court varied the earlier direction and split the rolled-up hearing so that the leave application in HCAL 687/2019 (Tsang JR) be heard first.
26 Mar 2019
The judge did not err in law or fact: the putative respondent followed CSO §§1 and 11 and properly acted on the Secretary for Justice's view; the applicant failed to exhaust alternative remedies (could have furnished the withheld documents and sought reconsideration); new grounds and fresh fact-sensitive arguments on appeal are not permitted; therefore leave to bring judicial review was rightly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
24 Jan 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the new ground about non‑use of the Board appeal was not raised in the appeal and lacked merit, the claimed failure to allow clarification had been addressed by the court, and the statutory threshold under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance was not met.