7 Mar 2025
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 his allegations were vague, unsupported, fact-specific and merely repeated arguments already rejected; there was therefore no basis to grant leave under the statutory or 'or otherwise' limb.
17 Sept 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board observed a high standard of fairness, had credible COI, and reasonably found state protection and internal relocation available, so there was no realistic prospect of success and the enhanced Wednesbury test was not met.
16 Aug 2021
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error or procedural unfairness: interpretation services were available, no substantive prejudice was demonstrated from lack of representation or language assistance, and the Board's decision that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated (including findings on state protection and internal relocation) was reasonable and not legally flawed.
22 Dec 2020
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) and failed to advance reasonably arguable grounds to reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment; additionally, the legal standard of fairness does not require continuous provision of interpretation/translation of determinations.
11 Mar 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, her complaints were unsupported bare assertions, she had not demonstrated inability to engage with English documents or lack of assistance, and responsibility for not receiving documents rested with her provided address; thus no basis existed to grant leave or to depart from ordinary procedures.
30 Jul 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable: the Adjudicator's adverse credibility findings and conclusions on risk were supported by adequate reasons, were not Wednesbury unreasonable, and there was no procedural unfairness or demonstrable prejudice from the absence of legal representation or continuous interpretation.
25 Jul 2019
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Judge's refusal of leave because the Adjudicator and Board had engaged in a proper, detailed consideration of the claim, applied the law correctly, provided necessary interpretation assistance, and the applicant's complaints were not reasonably arguable or Wednesbury‑unreasonable; therefore there were no errors of law or procedural unfairness warranting leave for judicial review.
19 Jul 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances to challenge the Director’s decision directly, she had access to documents and interpretation as needed, the Board’s findings on COI, state protection and lack of real risk were rational and not vulnerable to public law challenge, and there was no reasonable prospect of success in the proposed judicial review.
19 Jul 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground: the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were open to it on the evidence, the applicant did not raise language‑assistance complaints at first instance and there is no general entitlement to interpretation at all times, and there was no procedural unfairness or error of law warranting judicial intervention.
10 Jul 2019
The Judge did not err in refusing leave: the applicant was barred from judicial review of the Director's decision, the complaints against the Board were not reasonably arguable because the Board's adverse credibility findings and decision were supported and not Wednesbury unreasonable, and the alleged lack of language assistance did not demonstrate procedural unfairness sufficient to overturn the Judge's refusal of leave; new grounds raised on appeal were inadmissible.