17 Jul 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, advanced only broad and vague factual assertions insufficient to found leave, and abandoned written submissions by failing to file the required skeleton argument; there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
30 Apr 2025
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, advanced only broad and vague factual assertions (challenges to findings of fact lie with the Board), and provided no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb; further, the applicant abandoned written submissions by failing to file a skeleton argument.
12 Jul 2023
The court dismissed the notice of motion and refused leave to appeal to the CFA because the applicant failed to show that the judgment raised any arguable issue of great general or public importance or otherwise meriting submission to the CFA; accordingly the statutory criteria in s22(1)(b) were not satisfied.
6 Jun 2023
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and the intended appeal lacked merit and any reasonable prospect of success.
15 Mar 2023
Because the applicant's submissions only addressed his individual circumstances and did not raise any question of great general or public importance nor satisfied the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b), leave to appeal and any extension of time to file the notice of motion were refused.
15 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and the intended appeal had no merits or reasonable prospect of success, so s22(1)(b) did not permit leave.
5 Jul 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) CFAO and failed to point to any reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal judgment or in the processing of his non-refoulement claim; there was therefore no basis to grant leave under the statute or the "otherwise" limb, and the application could properly be determined on the papers.
23 Jun 2022
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 required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to provide particulars or explain how the principle of irrationality was misapplied, and the matters raised were not reasonably arguable nor did they qualify under the "otherwise" limb.
23 Jun 2022
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and the matters advanced were not reasonably arguable; no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb.
16 Dec 2021
The court accepted that, in appropriate cases, a notice of motion for leave to appeal under s22(1)(b) may be determined on paper pursuant to the Registrar's direction and that the material must demonstrate an arguable point of law of general public importance to justify submission to the Court of Final Appeal.