7 May 2026
Court granted the applicant's request to withdraw the permission application because the Court was satisfied on the evidence and documents that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed and that the applicant understood the consequence that the appeal board's decision would become final; accordingly the permission is revoked.
27 Apr 2026
The court accepted the applicant's stated facts that she no longer faced risk and that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed; accordingly the court allowed the withdrawal, with the consequence that the appeal board's decision stands as final and binding.
5 Mar 2026
The withdrawal letter and the record showed the applicant acted freely and with an informed understanding of the consequences; accordingly the court allowed the withdrawal and treated the Board's decision as final and binding on the applicant.
30 Jan 2026
Withdrawal of the leave application was allowed because the applicant's sworn affirmation demonstrated an informed and conscious decision, including an understanding of the consequences (finality of the Board's decision), and there was no evidence of coercion or procedural unfairness.
19 Nov 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was granted because the impugned decision involved crucial findings of new factual matters which should be adjudicated by the Appeal Board to produce a final decision under the statutory scheme; accordingly leave is necessary unless the Director permits the applicant to lodge the subsequent claim enabling appeal to the Board.
15 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and section 37ZF deems a torture/non-refoulement claim withdrawn on departure, leaving no outstanding matter and rendering any relief pointless; accordingly the court refused to grant leave as it would serve no practical purpose.
15 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, by operation of section 37ZF, the torture/non-refoulement claim was deemed withdrawn so there was nothing outstanding to be remedied and granting relief would serve no practical purpose; the applicant's unsupported, non-specific assertions did not establish grounds for review.
8 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, under section 37ZF, his torture/non-refoulement claim is deemed withdrawn; consequently any judicial review would be otiose and serve no practical purpose, justifying refusal of relief and dismissal for case management.
8 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because s.37ZF deems the claim withdrawn upon the claimant's departure and the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong, rendering judicial review relief pointless; the court exercised its discretion to refuse leave on that basis.
2 Sept 2025
The court allowed the applicant’s application to withdraw because on affirmation the applicant made the withdrawal of her own free will, understood that the Board’s decision would remain in force and that she may be refouled, and therefore the court was satisfied to permit withdrawal and granted leave to withdraw the leave application.