16 May 2022
The Court upheld the deputy judge’s refusal of leave because the applicant’s grounds were not reasonably arguable on the material before the Board; procedural complaints lacked substance and did not demonstrate prejudice; and the applicant’s failure to lodge a skeleton argument justified vacating the oral hearing and considering the appeal on paper, supporting dismissal of the appeal.
31 Dec 2020
The applicant's failure to lodge a skeleton argument after warning justified vacating the oral hearing and proceeding on paper; on the available materials the Board's adverse credibility and evidential findings were supported by the record and the applicant failed to establish a real risk engaging non-refoulement protection, so the appeal is dismissed and the Director's decision is upheld.
19 Nov 2020
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions, and the applicant's failure to lodge a skeleton argument justified vacating the oral hearing and supported dismissal.
12 Nov 2020
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant identified no error of law or relevant misdirection in the Deputy Judge's refusal to grant leave; the Board's adverse credibility finding and rejection of the non‑refoulement claim was a primary factual assessment the court will not disturb absent legal error; the applicant's procedural non‑compliance (failure to lodge skeleton) justified processing on paper.
5 Sept 2019
The appeal is dismissed: the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument thereby forfeiting an oral hearing and the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable grounds or special circumstances to justify late filings or to establish an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits of a non-refoulement determination.
8 Apr 2019
Because the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument after being warned, the oral hearing was properly vacated and the appeal considered on paper; on the merits the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness in the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator, and the asylum claim lacked credibility, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed.
8 Apr 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument after warning (thereby abandoning an oral hearing), failed to identify any error in the Deputy Judge’s refusal of leave, and the Board’s and Deputy Judge’s decisions contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial intervention.
3 Dec 2018
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were matters of individual circumstance and unarguable, and because the applicant received clear directions to lodge a skeleton submission and failed to take any steps to comply, such failure justifying dismissal of the application for leave.
21 Nov 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Director and the Board had adequate and legally sound bases for rejecting the non-refoulement claim, the applicant refused to give evidence and had ample opportunity to do so, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law such as would give a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
12 Nov 2018
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds were personal to the applicant and did not raise a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; the lower court had already addressed the language and representation complaints; the new discrimination ground was impermissible and unparticularized; and the applicant had been warned about the skeleton argument requirement, so the statutory condition for leave was not satisfied.