20 May 2026
Applicant gave contradictory explanations for delay, failed to identify any arguable grounds of appeal or judicial review and thus could not show a reasonable prospect of success; consequently there was no proper excuse for delay and no extension of time should be granted.
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 section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, raised no reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, offered no basis under the "otherwise" limb, and failed to comply with directions to lodge written submissions and thereby abandoned reliance on them.
30 Apr 2026
The Notice of Motion is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to particularise alleged errors, abandoned written submissions by non-compliance with directions, and there was no basis under the 'otherwise' limb to grant leave.
9 Apr 2026
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 as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap 484, provided no particulars of alleged errors and raised no reasonably arguable grounds, and no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb, such that the Notice of Motion was properly dismissed.
25 Mar 2026
Because the applicant validly applied to withdraw the leave application, there was no evidence of compulsion and no outstanding issue in the action, the appropriate disposal was dismissal of the application for leave to apply for judicial review.
25 Feb 2026
The applicants failed to satisfy section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance by identifying any question of great general or public importance or any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and no basis existed under the 'otherwise' limb; therefore leave to appeal was refused.
23 Dec 2025
Leave was granted because the Board's decision dated 12 December 2019 failed to give a separate consideration to the minor applicant's case as required by binding authority (Court of Appeal in Fabio Timogan), and therefore there was an arguable error of law warranting judicial review; the joint application need not be severed and the Board must take applicants' facts and special circumstances into account.
13 Nov 2025
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify a question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, failed to lodge written submissions and thus abandoned reliance on them, and did not demonstrate any reasonably arguable error or any basis under the 'otherwise' limb.
11 Nov 2025
Extension of time was refused because the applicant was 1 month and 11 days late, offered no valid reason for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's findings that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated and state protection and internal relocation were viable.
8 Oct 2025
Because the applicant validly withdrew the application for leave to apply for judicial review and there were no outstanding matters in the action, the court dismissed the application, applying the principle in Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi and the procedural provisions of Order 53.