30 Apr 2026
The application for leave to 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 comply with Practice Direction 2.1 by lodging written submissions or particulars, and his allegations were fact‑specific and thus insufficient to justify leave.
30 Apr 2026
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 s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and his assertions were vague, unsupported, fact-specific and merely re-ran arguments already rejected by the courts; therefore no discretion should be exercised to grant leave.
18 Dec 2025
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO; his assertions were vague, unsupported and directed at factual errors in the Board's decision rather than any legal error in this Court's Judgment; accordingly there is no basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and the Notice of Motion must be dismissed.
18 Dec 2025
The application for leave under section 22(1)(b) was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance; his allegations were vague, unparticularised and unsupported by evidence; and the application merely re‑ran arguments previously considered and rejected by the court, therefore no basis existed to grant leave.
8 Oct 2025
The applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO; his allegations were vague, unsupported and fact-specific, some were not raised below, and therefore there is no legal basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under either limb of s22(1)(b).
8 Oct 2025
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO; his assertions were vague, unsupported and merely re-ran arguments already rejected by the Court of Appeal, and there was no basis to grant leave under the alternative limb of s22(1)(b).
22 Jul 2025
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 s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to demonstrate that the Judge erred in law; the grounds advanced were matters for the Immigration Board and did not satisfy the statutory test.
21 Feb 2025
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and his allegations were vague, unsupported and fact‑specific; there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb; non‑compliance with Practice Direction 2.1 and failure to identify any specific error in the Judgment reinforced dismissal.
19 Feb 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO and his assertions were vague, unsupported and fact-specific, with no error shown in the prior judgment.
19 Feb 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is 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 specify any error or proper grounds of appeal, breached Practice Direction 2.1 by not lodging written submissions, and the case lacked merit as the allegations were fact-specific.