10 May 2024
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and failed to point to any specific error in the Court of Appeal Judgment; his allegations were vague, unsupported and fact-specific and therefore did not merit leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
5 Aug 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the notice of motion and written submissions failed to identify any arguable error of law or any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; the intended appeal was unarguable and bound to fail.
14 Mar 2018
The court dismissed the judicial review. It held the Director lawfully exercised his discretionary power under the Immigration Ordinance, gave adequate and lawful consideration to family and custody matters within a policy framework that reserves residual discretion, did not fetter his discretion, the decision was not Wednesbury-unreasonable nor procedurally unfair, and the removal order under sections 19(1)(b) and detention under section 32(3A) were properly authorised.
20 Jun 2016
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of leave because the applicant failed to show dependency required by the dependant visa policy, the Director lawfully exercised a wide discretion (including consideration of humanitarian factors) and the decision was not irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable; absent legal error, illegality or unfairness there is no basis for judicial intervention.