22 Apr 2026
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed substantially out of time with unsatisfactory explanations for delay and, on merits, the Board's decisions disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; therefore the claim was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success.
3 Mar 2026
The application to extend time was refused because it was filed more than four months late and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on the merits; the Board's factual findings that the applicant's evidence was unreliable and that internal relocation was viable were within its province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no good reason to extend time or grant leave.
10 Feb 2026
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed well outside the three month limit with no application or explanation for extension and, on the merits, the Board had reasonably and lawfully assessed credibility and risk such that there was no reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success; the court would have refused any extension even if sought. The Form was amended to name the correct parties.
4 Feb 2026
The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation and the intended judicial review lacks reasonable arguability: the Board's 18 September 2020 decision involved permissible findings on credibility and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown; therefore no extension of time is warranted and leave is refused.
26 Nov 2025
The court refused to extend time and dismissed the leave application because the applicant was seven months late without any satisfactory explanation, failed to produce sufficient evidence of a significant change in circumstances as required by s37ZO, had no realistic prospect of success given unchallenged prior findings of state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the Director's refusal was lawful and procedurally fair.
25 Nov 2025
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed out of time (three days late) with no explanation or application for extension and, in any event, the applicant left Hong Kong voluntarily so that her torture claim was treated as withdrawn under section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance, rendering the proposed judicial review otiose; accordingly no extension of time was granted and leave was refused.
12 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in the Form 86 or at the hearing, did not demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed factual findings that rejected his credibility, and because his delay of over two years was lengthy, unexplained and unjustified so that extension of time should be refused.
8 Jul 2025
The leave application was dismissed because it was filed well outside the statutory time limit with no justification, the applicant validly and deliberately withdrew his appeal such that the appeal was withdrawn under s37ZTA(2) Cap 115 and the Board became functus officio, and the Board's decision disclosed no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and thus the intended judicial review lacked realistic prospects of success.
12 Jun 2025
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the intended appeal raised a question of great general or public importance or had prospects of success, and the Notice of Motion was filed well beyond the 28‑day statutory deadline under s24 Cap 484 without any valid excuse.
13 May 2025
Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application: Applicant gave no explanation or application for extension; the proposed challenge lacked realistic prospects of success because the Board's factual and credibility findings (insufficient detail, non-attendance, absence of substantiated risk) were within its jurisdiction and disclosed no error of law or procedural unfairness, so leave was refused and application dismissed.