5 Jan 2026
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raises a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) and failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.
11 Jul 2025
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify particular errors in the Court of Appeal's decision or any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b), and there was no basis to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb.
25 Oct 2024
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raises a question of great general or public importance or that it has any real prospects of success; the Board's adverse credibility findings justified rejection of the factual basis of the non-refoulement claim.
10 Nov 2022
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show that the intended appeal raised a question of great and general or public importance required for leave under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 and failed to show any prospects of success; there was no need for an oral hearing under Practice Direction 2.1.
21 Oct 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to specify any grounds of appeal and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance or any other basis under section 22(1)(b) to justify granting leave.
28 Jan 2022
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error in the Court of Appeal's judgment and failed to demonstrate any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) HKCFAO, rendering the intended appeal devoid of merit.
31 May 2019
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 s22(1)(b) and the purported fresh evidence did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall criteria (could have been obtained earlier, would not have a very important effect, and/or was not inherently persuasive) nor were there exceptional circumstances to admit it; hence no basis to grant leave.