15 May 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularize or substantiate any viable ground to challenge the Judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Judge's decision.
15 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness with sufficient particulars; the Judge correctly concluded there was no basis to interfere with the Board's decision.
9 Mar 2026
The delay was inexcusable because the applicant failed to notify the court of her change of address and therefore did not receive the decision; under established authorities an inexcusable delay requires the applicant to demonstrate a real prospect of success, which she did not because no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown in the Board's findings; accordingly extension of time was refused and the summons dismissed.
8 Oct 2025
Where an applicant provided no additional facts or arguments specific to a BOR2 claim and the claim had been previously considered on other non-refoulement grounds, the NRCPO was entitled not to hold a further BOR2 hearing; therefore there was no breach of procedural fairness, no unlawful fettering of discretion and no irrationality, and the leave application was dismissed.
12 Sept 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify particular errors or any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) and provided no particulars or evidence to support the asserted grounds; an extension of time was granted for the short delay due to custody but that did not alter the absence of merit.
21 Aug 2025
The Applicant's grounds were unparticularised and lacked supporting evidence; the Board properly considered the BOR 2 ground and applied the correct legal principles, identified material inconsistencies and absence of objective evidence, reasonably found internal relocation available, and relied on appropriate COI; there was no procedural unfairness or irrationality justifying interference, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
4 Jun 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant's NRF claim and factual assertions were vague and not credible, the Board's assessment fell within its primary fact‑finding province and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant therefore lacked a realistic prospect of success for leave to apply for judicial review.
30 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), failed to demonstrate any error in the CA judgment or raise a viable ground of appeal, and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success; there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b).
3 Apr 2025
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions unsupported by particulars or evidence and she failed to identify any question of great general or public importance (or any other basis) under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
2 Apr 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raises a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to demonstrate any prospects of success; there was no reason to depart from the practice of determining the application on the available materials without an oral hearing.