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.
17 May 2024
Extension of time refused because the Board lawfully exercised its discretion under s37ZT to refuse late filing after finding the applicant's explanation sketchy, no strong merits, no fault by the Director, no public importance and no special circumstances making it unjust; the judge below did not err in law or procedure and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
20 Apr 2023
Leave was granted because, although the Board was entitled to find the Applicant's delay and explanation unacceptable, the Board failed to consider the merits of the appeal as part of the relevant matters under s37ZT(2)(b); the intended judicial review was reasonably arguable and met the threshold for leave.
23 Nov 2022
Extension of time was refused because the applicant’s delay was substantial and caused by his own failure to notify change of address, he had no real prospect of success on appeal because there were no arguable public law errors in the Board’s or judge’s decisions, and consequently it would be futile and prejudicial to grant an extension.
6 Sept 2022
Leave was granted because the Board, when refusing to extend time, did not take into account the merits of the Director's decision as required under the pre-amendment approach to s37ZT; the Director's findings were inconsistent with the applicant's evidence and the applicant demonstrated a realistic prospect of success on substantive judicial review, warranting leave and remittance for reconsideration under the law applicable at the time of the decision.
11 Aug 2022
Application for leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) and failed to demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Board; statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
22 Oct 2021
The Board unlawfully failed to take into account relevant matters of fact within its knowledge, including the merits of the proposed appeals as required by s37ZT(2)(b); that failure rendered the Board's preliminary refusals susceptible to judicial review and met the threshold for leave, justifying an extension of time and grant of leave to apply for review.
16 Jun 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review and an extension of time were granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Board failed to take into account relevant matters of fact within its knowledge (including merits of the appeals) as required by s37ZT(2)(b) and that its conclusions on undue delay were Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational in context (detention, postal delay, and low days of delay).
4 Apr 2019
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant's arguments did not raise any question of great general or public importance or otherwise engage the statutory criterion in s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; s 37ZT was irrelevant to the leave application.
13 Dec 2017
The Appeal Board did not err in refusing the late filing: the applicant failed to demonstrate the required special circumstances under s.37ZT; there is no duty on the Board to make further inquiries where supporting evidence lies within the applicant's control; and while merits may be considered in appropriate preliminary determinations, here the merits did not justify allowing the late filing.