30 Mar 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's decision refusing leave; the Court will not intervene to re‑examine the Board's factual or COI assessments absent such errors.
8 May 2024
The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and the grounds advanced were not viable, so the statutory requirements for granting leave were not met.
20 Mar 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, his materials were vague and merely repeated arguments already rejected, the CA judgment contained no identifiable error, and there was no basis under s.22(1)(b) or the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave.
29 Dec 2023
The leave application was dismissed because the Form 86 failed to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds as required by Order 53 rule 3(2), and no irrationality or other public law basis for relief was shown, so there was no reasonable prospect of success.
20 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because no question of great general or public importance was shown, the proposed grounds were bare and raised belatedly, the underlying judicial review was found by the lower judge to be not reasonably arguable and without realistic prospect of success, and the Director's prior permission to remain was irrelevant to the Secretary's decision to refuse suspension or rescission of the deportation order.
4 May 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO, advanced only bare assertions without particulars or written submissions, and there was no basis to grant leave under the residual limb; accordingly the notice of motion seeking leave to appeal was dismissed.
8 Apr 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed because the 11‑month delay was unjustified, the application lacked sufficient particulars and merit, and no question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 was identified or reasonably arguable.
22 Mar 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal lacked merit and failed to raise any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, and no basis existed under the 'or otherwise' limb to justify granting leave.
21 Dec 2020
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the statutory threshold in s22(1)(b) was not met: the grounds advanced do not raise issues of great general or public importance, the complaints relied on were not raised earlier and therefore cannot be introduced at this stage, the assertions lack particulars, and the statutory provision cited (s37ZT) was irrelevant on the facts; accordingly no leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was granted.