29 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify with sufficient particulars any error in the Leave Decision; his allegations were general, unsupported and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting intervention, and therefore there was no basis to reverse the judge’s refusal of leave.
3 Mar 2026
Because the Immigration Department granted the applicant permission to stay in Hong Kong and the applicant was absent from the hearing, the court concluded the applicant had no intention to proceed and dismissed the leave application as moot/for want of prosecution.
27 Aug 2025
The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion and refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b), merely repeated grounds already rejected by the Court of Appeal, and failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 by not filing required written submissions, so there was no basis to grant leave or an extension of time.
11 Aug 2025
Because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the leave application and there was no suggestion of compulsion, the challenge to the Board's decision became moot; the court accordingly dismissed the leave application without adjudicating the merits, following appellate authorities on mootness.
1 Aug 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise grounds or disclose material facts, failed to adduce credible evidence, and the Board’s decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; credibility findings and reasoning satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test and medical complaints did not establish a non‑refoulement risk.
31 Mar 2025
Detention was lawful and not unreasonable because it was authorised by ss.32(3A) and 29(1) IO, the Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and priority for the subsequent NRC, a valid travel document and a scheduled repatriation flight existed, and the applicant's history and stated unwillingness to return created a real risk of absconding such that release was not warranted.
26 Nov 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant had been removed from Hong Kong and, pursuant to section 37ZF of the Immigration Ordinance, the claim is deemed withdrawn so there was no outstanding matter and no practical relief the court could grant.
17 Nov 2021
The court refused leave and refused to extend time because the applicant provided no adequate explanation for the delay, the proposed grounds lacked sufficient arguability, and the tribunal's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and free of legal or procedural error; medical treatment and lack of legal representation did not justify extending time.
26 Jul 2021
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant could not demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal: the Board's extensive adverse credibility findings and failure to prove primary facts meant there was no factual basis for non-refoulement relief or a real risk of proscribed ill-treatment, and delay caused by non-receipt or administrative misplacement did not justify extension for a hopeless appeal.
8 Apr 2019
The Judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review was correct because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness; the Director and the Board had considered the claim carefully and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable, hence there was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review and the appeal is dismissed.