4 Mar 2022
Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay of over 3½ months was substantial without cogent explanation and he failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave, meaning there was no real prospect of success and it would be futile to extend time.
15 Dec 2021
The applicant did not identify any error of law nor a question of great general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO; the new complaint of lack of legal assistance was unfounded because Duty Lawyer Service had been provided; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notice of Motion dismissed.
24 Dec 2018
The Court dismissed the appeal because the alleged procedural defects lacked merit: high standards of fairness did not impose an automatic right to continued legal representation or interpreter beyond what was provided; the applicant had opportunity and had replied to the Director; the Board reasonably concluded there was no new material making an oral hearing necessary; both the Board's and Director's decisions met the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and the Director's decision is superseded by the Board's decision and thus not separably reviewable once appeal pursued.
23 Aug 2018
The applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal was refused because he failed to satisfy the statutory threshold in s22(1)(b) Cap 484: there was no prospect of success, no demonstrable real prejudice from the lack of Duty Lawyer Service assistance, and no issue of great general or public importance was raised.
23 Feb 2018
Leave was refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success: the adjudicator lawfully and carefully assessed the evidence under the correct legal tests, found available state protection and internal relocation viable, identified no Convention reason for persecution, found no minimum level of severity for CIDTP/torture, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law (including no miscarriage from lack of legal representation or translation).