10 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge’s reasoning and there was no demonstrable procedural unfairness, translation failure or entitlement to continual legal or interpretation assistance that would vitiate the decision to refuse leave.
4 Feb 2026
Extension of time refused because applicant was late without adequate explanation (delay inexcusable), he failed to show any real prospect of success on the merits of the intended judicial review, interpreter and prior legal assistance were available and there was no demonstrated procedural unfairness sufficient to undermine the Board's findings; accordingly the balance of relevant factors did not justify extending time.
2 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was out of time and devoid of merits: the NRCPO decision was supported by sound factual findings, no illegality, irrationality or procedural unfairness was established, the applicant failed to show prejudice from lack of legal representation or language assistance, and the court will not substitute its view for the primary fact‑finding bodies absent error.
29 Apr 2025
Leave refused because the Applicant failed to plead or particularize reasonably arguable grounds; the Board conducted a fair hearing, the Applicant declined to give oral evidence, DLS refusal was a merits-based decision, language assistance at hearing was provided, and the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
31 Dec 2021
The Court dismissed the application for leave because the applicants failed to demonstrate the appeal raised a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); the complaints about lack of legal and language assistance were considered but did not meet the statutory threshold and the applicants failed to engage with the Court's reasons.
27 Sept 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and there was no basis for the alternative limb; the intended appeal had no merit.
1 Apr 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant only repeated arguments about lack of legal and language assistance already rejected by this Court; such repetition did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 nor constitute reasonably arguable grounds for the CFA to determine.
18 Dec 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise a question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the grounds advanced (including alleged lack of language and legal assistance) were not reasonably arguable, and new fact‑sensitive points not previously argued were inappropriate for leave.
25 Oct 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of appeal and did not meet the statutory threshold in s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the issues raised were either already addressed by the courts or inadequately pleaded as new grounds.