30 Apr 2024
Section 37ZF(1) of the Immigration Ordinance treats a non-refoulement claim as withdrawn where the claimant leaves Hong Kong; because the applicant had left Hong Kong, his non-refoulement claim was treated as withdrawn and his application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
21 Dec 2023
The court dismissed the leave application because the applicant affirmed an intention to withdraw and there was nothing outstanding; applying the Court of Appeal precedent in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi the correct disposition is dismissal rather than leaving the action at large.
28 Jun 2023
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant applied to close the case after obtaining a dependant visa leaving nothing outstanding; under Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi the correct disposition when there is nothing outstanding is dismissal rather than leaving the action at large.
1 Jun 2023
The applicant's application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because the underlying Order, made pursuant to the applicant's own application, had been sealed and the Court therefore had no further jurisdiction to deal with the application.
19 Dec 2022
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant, by affirmation, effectively withdrew the application and, applying the Court of Appeal authority in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi, the proper conclusion was to order dismissal where nothing remained outstanding.
12 Dec 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, the matters advanced were not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal, and there was no basis under the "otherwise" limb; procedural non‑compliance (failure to file submissions) justified determination on the papers and supported dismissal.
17 Jun 2022
Applying the established factors for extension of time, the court found no realistic prospect of success in the intended appeal and no arguable error in the Board's or Court's decisions; therefore extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.
6 Jul 2020
Leave was refused because no reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified in the Director's or the Board's risk assessments; the findings that the risk was localized, reduced by the passage of time and that state protection and internal relocation were available made the Applicant's non-refoulement claim unsustainable and not suitable for rehearing by the court.
7 Dec 2018
Extension of time was refused and the application dismissed as out of time because the applicant was 35 days late, provided no explanation for the delay, failed to demonstrate real prospects of success on review, and there was no basis to conclude the adjudicator acted improperly or unreasonably.
27 Nov 2018
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed as out of time because it was filed about four months and 16 days late without any explanation; the applicant failed to demonstrate real prospects of success, therefore no extension of time was warranted.