24 Aug 2022
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error in the Court of Appeal's decision, did not demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised issues of general or public importance or other exceptional reasons under s22(1)(b), and did not comply with directions; therefore leave was not merited.
22 Jun 1994
The appeal is allowed to restore leave because there was an arguable case that statelessness (want of nationality) is a relevant consideration in the Director's exercise of discretion to require departure; the Director's clear exclusion of statelessness as irrelevant required investigation and potentially vitiates the decision, so leave to apply for judicial review must be reinstated.
11 Sept 1992
Applicants failed to prove they were stateless as defined by the Convention because they did not establish loss of Chinese nationality under PRC law; accordingly the Director was not required to apply the Convention and his decision to refuse change of status and require departure was not Wednesbury-unreasonable; motions dismissed.
11 Sept 1992
The applicants failed to prove on the evidence that they had relinquished Chinese nationality in accordance with PRC law and therefore had not established that they were stateless; accordingly the Director was not obliged to apply the Convention protections and his decision to require them to leave was not Wednesbury unreasonable, so the motions were dismissed.