10 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant advanced new, fact‑sensitive grounds that were not raised below and failed to identify any arguable legal error; the judge correctly concluded the Board applied the correct legal tests, observed fairness, and made factual credibility assessments within its province, so there was no basis to grant leave to apply for judicial review.
8 Mar 2023
The judge properly exercised his discretion to determine the leave application on paper; the applicant disclosed no viable public law ground in his Form 86 or affirmation and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; the Court of Appeal will not re-open the Board's factual assessments on state protection, credibility or risk absent an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, none of which was established; accordingly the refusal of leave was correctly upheld and the appeal dismissed.
17 Aug 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the application for leave for judicial review was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation, and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility finding defeated any arguable public law ground and the Judge correctly found no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting interference.
13 Nov 2020
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant sought to raise new fact‑sensitive grounds (alleged translator miscommunication) not previously argued, the Board's detailed credibility findings were not open to appellate intervention, and the statutory threshold under s22(1)(b) Cap. 484 was not satisfied as there was no arguable point of general or public importance or prospect of success.
26 Jul 2019
Extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the second judicial review application was an abuse of process/res judicata following the prior refusal, new grounds could not be raised on appeal, and the judge had given sufficient reasons, rendering the intended appeal hopeless.
1 Feb 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable unlawful, unreasonable or procedurally unfair conduct by the Director or the Board; the Board's adverse credibility finding was properly reached and was dispositive so there was no prospect of success even if other issues had been considered; and the grounds advanced on appeal were not raised below and were time‑barred.
16 Mar 2016
The Court dismissed the appeal because the dispute was a private employment/contractual matter not amenable to judicial review, supported by precedent (Chik Po Yee), and because the appellant's attempt to rely on Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance s10 was raised for the first time on appeal and was both unpleaded in the original forms and made after an inordinate delay of over a year without any exceptional circumstances to justify permitting the new ground.