22 Apr 2026
Applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success or any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings on state protection, right to life, severity of mistreatment and internal relocation; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
1 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant's grounds were bare assertions lacking evidential support, she failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
20 Jan 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's independent assessments that the risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
17 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground or produce fresh material to show a realistic prospect of success; given the Board's prior finding of no BOR 3 risk, the applicant could not establish an arguable BOR 2 claim and therefore had no realistic prospect of success.
7 Nov 2025
The application for leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; credibility and risk assessments were open to the primary decision-makers and there was a rational basis for their conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available.
27 Oct 2025
Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the applicant filed over four years late without any satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision (which rested on adverse credibility findings and a reasonable internal relocation conclusion), and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits of a non-refoulement decision absent a proper legal basis.
30 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably assessed credibility, treated the harm as a private land dispute, and found state protection and internal relocation available, such that judicial review as a rehearing was inappropriate.
25 Sept 2025
There was no reasonably arguable basis for judicial review because the Board and the Director conducted lawful, rational assessments supported by evidence and COI, finding low risk and viable internal relocation; no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
11 Feb 2025
The Board and Director made lawful, rational findings that the risk to the applicant was localized, lacked evidence of intent to kill, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and there was no procedural unfairness or legal error identified; the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised and therefore not reasonably arguable, so there was no prospect of success and leave was refused.
8 Aug 2024
Leave was refused 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 and Director applied correct legal tests, found any risk to be localized and remediable by state protection or reasonable internal relocation, and judicial review cannot be used to re-hear merits absent identifiable legal error, so there was no prospect of success.