29 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's Leave Decision; her allegations were general, unsupported and lacked particulars; adequate language assistance was available; accordingly there is no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.
17 Dec 2025
The applicant failed to advance a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects because his grounds were general assertions without particulars, the Board conducted a lawful and fair assessment of evidence and COI, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
17 Dec 2024
The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance nor any reasonably arguable ground or particulars of error under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 and therefore leave to appeal was refused; no basis existed under the "otherwise" limb.
19 Aug 2024
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because it was filed out of time, the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for delay or non-receipt of the Judgment sent to her current address, and she failed to identify any question of great general or public importance (or any basis under the alternative limb) as required by s22(1)(b) of the Ordinance; accordingly leave to appeal was not justified and the extension of time did not arise for determination.
8 Dec 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground demonstrating legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions or in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; interpreters had been provided, there is no entitlement to free representation at all stages, and the Board lawfully found the risk was localized and that state protection/internal relocation were available, negating non-refoulement protection.
9 Dec 2021
The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay of over 2.5 years was substantial, no cogent explanation was provided, the applicant identified no error of law or arguable ground in the Judge's decision, and therefore there was no real prospect of success such that extension would be futile.
21 May 2021
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for delay and failed to identify any arguable error by the judge or public law error in the Board's decision; the intended appeal was hopeless with no realistic prospect of success and therefore extension of time was not warranted.
2 Aug 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable and he had no realistic prospects of success: the Adjudicator's decision was lawfully reached, procedurally fair, not irrational, the appeal bundle was served in time, the applicant was not prejudiced by lack of counsel or interpretation, and internal relocation/state protection were viable.
29 Mar 2018
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal error or a matter of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b); there is no absolute right to free legal representation or interpretation assistance at all stages absent denial of available assistance; and the Board's finding of no real risk and viable internal relocation was within the Board's fact‑finding discretion.