20 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, and therefore had no realistic prospect of succeeding on judicial review.
15 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings were supported by the evidence (no intent by enemies to harm, no serious injury, low risk on return, state protection and internal relocation available), and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality meriting judicial review.
6 May 2026
The Board correctly applied s.37ZT and lawfully exercised its discretion to refuse late filing because the applicant failed to show he exercised all due diligence and failed to demonstrate circumstances beyond his control; consequently the applicant had no realistic prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
29 Apr 2026
The application was refused because it was filed out of time and the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success on judicial review given the Board's findings were supported by evidence and there was no error of law or procedural unfairness; therefore no good reason to extend time and leave was dismissed.
5 Mar 2026
Leave refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings on risk and internal relocation were within its fact-finding province and were not vitiated by any identifiable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.
5 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant raised no valid or specific grounds demonstrating legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and therefore has no realistic prospect of success.
3 Mar 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings fell within its fact-finding province and the applicant had no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid grounds demonstrating an arguable case; the Board's factual findings (no established risk, availability of state protection, viable internal relocation) were within its province and not affected by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
11 Feb 2026
The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision and did not show a realistic prospect of success on judicial review; the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were within its fact-finding remit and justified refusal of leave.
9 Feb 2026
Extension of time was refused and the application for leave dismissed because the application was filed more than two months late without sufficient explanation or prospects of success; the Board's decision was supported by findings of lack of evidence on torture, state involvement and inability/unwillingness of state protection, and internal relocation was viable; absence of legal representation did not amount to procedural unfairness or entitlement to automatic relief.