25 Feb 2026
Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than 13 days late, offered no valid reason for the delay, and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given the Board's rejection of his unsubstantiated non-refoulement claim; accordingly the application was dismissed.
4 Jul 2025
The Court allowed the withdrawal because it was satisfied from the applicant's sworn affirmation that the withdrawal was made freely and with awareness of the consequences including that the Board's decision would remain final and that refoulement was possible.
12 Jun 2025
The TCAB applied the correct legal test under section 37ZG, properly considered documentary evidence and oral testimony, and reasonably concluded the applicant failed to establish circumstances beyond his control for late filing; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and judicial review leave is refused.
5 Jun 2025
The court allowed the withdrawal because the applicant affirmatively demonstrated the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, understood that the Board's decision would remain final and that she may be refouled, thereby justifying permitting the applicant to withdraw the leave application.
3 Apr 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and the Board's findings that the risk was localized and low, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑hear or substitute the Board's and Director's fact‑based risk assessments.
13 Mar 2025
The applicant failed to particularise any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; absent reasonably arguable grounds or demonstrated legal error, the Judge correctly refused leave and the Court of Appeal will not disturb that refusal.
30 Aug 2024
Extension of time refused because the applicants were more than one month out of time, provided inadequate reasons for the delay, and their intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success as they raised no valid grounds to challenge the Board's findings; accordingly the application for extension and the application were dismissed.
15 Aug 2024
Because the applicant voluntarily applied to withdraw his leave application and nothing remained outstanding in the action, the proper disposition was to dismiss the application rather than leave the action at large, following Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
18 Jun 2024
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant voluntarily withdrew the application and there were no outstanding matters, such that dismissal was the correct disposition under the authority of Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471.
14 Mar 2024
Extension of time was refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was six months out of time with no explanation, the delay was inordinate, and the proposed grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars so as not to be reasonably arguable; there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions to justify relief by judicial review.