15 May 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or substantiate any viable error in the judge's refusal of leave; the Board's acceptance of the applicant's withdrawal was valid and voluntary, and there was no basis to overturn the judge's decision.
5 Jan 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable public law errors; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings, reached after a fresh consideration of documentary evidence and in circumstances where the applicant failed to attend or explain absence, did not demonstrate procedural unfairness, irrationality or legal error, and therefore the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
17 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal ground and, upon anxious scrutiny, the Board's decision correctly applied the law, observed high standards of fairness and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.
3 May 2023
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by detailed reasons after oral evidence and the Director and Board permissibly found the risk localized with reasonable internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
24 Mar 2023
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was substantially delayed without adequate explanation and, having regard to the merits, there was no real or even reasonable prospect of success since no viable grounds or evidence were advanced to impugn the Board’s adverse credibility findings; thus the discretion to extend time was properly withheld.
13 Jan 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground to show error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions or in the judge's refusal of leave; the Board lawfully allowed withdrawal of the appeal and the Director's factual findings on low risk, relocation and state protection were not displaced.
15 Jul 2022
The applicant's challenge was without realistic prospect of success because the Board's adverse findings on credibility and on availability of state protection and internal relocation were not tainted by legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; accordingly extension of time was refused and the application for leave was dismissed.
15 Dec 2021
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law in the Court of Appeal’s judgment and failed to raise a question of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) HKCFAO, nor any basis under the "or otherwise" limb; therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
15 Jun 2021
The court set aside the earlier dismissal for want of prosecution but refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; those decisions were lawfully based on evidence and COI showing changed circumstances, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and thus there was no reasonably arguable ground for judicial review.
4 Jun 2021
Leave was properly refused because the applicant's grounds were general, vague and lacked necessary particulars; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings (reinforced by the applicant's refusal to answer questions) were matters for the primary decision-makers and showed no identifiable error of law or procedural unfairness that would justify judicial review; there was no real prospect of success.