20 Apr 2026
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, provided no particulars of error or reasonably arguable grounds, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb.
10 Oct 2025
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant merely repeated previously rejected grounds, failed to identify any specific error in the Court of Appeal judgment, and did not raise any question of great general or public importance.
24 Jul 2024
Extension of time denied because, although the delay was minimal, the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal that raise a question of great general or public importance or any other basis to justify referral to the Court of Final Appeal; therefore extension would be futile and the Notice of Motion was dismissed.
25 Nov 2022
The application 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 as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, failed to particularize errors or provide supporting evidence, and the matters raised were fact‑specific and therefore not appropriate for the Court of Final Appeal.
27 Jun 2022
One‑week delay notwithstanding, the application was dismissed because it merely rehashed arguments already rejected, the Board had conducted an oral hearing and given detailed reasons, the applicant failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal judgment and failed to show any question of great general or public importance; accordingly no extension of time or leave to appeal was warranted.
13 Jun 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicants merely reiterated rejected non‑refoulement grounds and failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raised any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 or that it had realistic prospects of success.
8 Apr 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b) Cap 484, most grounds were new and not previously argued, the grounds were vague and lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
8 Mar 2021
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant did not identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap. 484, his submissions related only to personal circumstances and lacked merit, and there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb; accordingly the statutory criteria for leave were not met.
3 Nov 2020
The Court exercised its s.24(6) discretion and refused to extend time because, although the 2‑day delay was minimal, the applicant gave no reasons and the intended appeal had no disclosed merits nor any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO; therefore the Notice of Motion was dismissed.
26 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, relied on points not previously argued before the Court of Appeal, and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'otherwise' limb.