15 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review; absent viable grounds to reverse the judge, the Court will not interfere.
23 Oct 2025
The application for leave was dismissed because the Applicant's challenge to the 2nd TCAB Decision was not reasonably arguable: the TCAB had applied the correct legal principles to the BOR2 claim, there were no new materials and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality demonstrated, and the Applicant had not established a real risk of treatment attracting BOR2 protection.
10 Sept 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the Board's decision was supported by sound factual findings, gave proper regard to Article 2 BOR and the applicant's individual circumstances, did not exhibit procedural unfairness or irrationality, and thus there were no arguable errors of law warranting judicial review; the Director's earlier decision was superseded by the Board's decision.
18 Mar 2022
The Court refused the extension of time because the applicant was one month late without satisfactory explanation and, more importantly, the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success: the applicant raised new factual grounds not previously considered, the Board's adverse credibility and country risk findings were unchallenged by any identified legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness, therefore granting an extension would be futile.
25 Oct 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds to show the Deputy Judge erred in law or committed procedural unfairness; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and lack of specific targeting were open to it and the Court will not substitute its view absent legal error.
22 Jun 2021
The court held the intended judicial review was reasonably arguable and granted leave (and extended time if necessary) because the Board erred by failing to consider the merits of the applicant’s appeals as a relevant matter under s 37ZT(2)(b) and by failing to apply the high standards of fairness required in non‑refoulement proceedings, including making reasonable enquiries or requesting further evidence before refusing late filings.
25 Sept 2020
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable point or question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; his submissions merely repeated previously rejected grounds and would not alter the outcome even if procedural technicalities on leave were addressed, therefore the statutory criteria for granting leave were not met.
12 Aug 2020
Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board correctly exercised s.37ZT to refuse late filing in absence of reasons or evidence; the risk was found localized with available state protection and feasible internal relocation, so no prospect of success on BOR2/BOR3/torture/persecution grounds.
22 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the substantive BOR2 issue was rendered academic after the Director reconsidered and rejected the BOR2 claims and because the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable ground for leave to apply for judicial review; accordingly the jurisdictional question under s22(1)(b) Cap 484 was unnecessary to decide and leave was refused.
22 Jul 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the substantive BOR2 issue had become academic once the Director expressly considered BOR2 and maintained the rejections, and there was no reasonably arguable case for leave to apply for judicial review; consequently the question whether an appeal lies from the Court of Appeal's refusal of an extension of time (s 22(1)(b)) was rendered academic and leave was refused.