19 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable ground to show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's factual findings on credibility, COI, state protection and internal relocation were open to it and the Judge correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review.
19 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and assessment that state protection and internal relocation were available were within its primary fact-finding remit, and the Judge correctly refused leave as the proposed judicial review had no real prospect of success (the short delay in filing was immaterial to the outcome).
12 May 2026
Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay of over four months was inordinate and unexplained; the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to identify any legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's adverse credibility findings and the Board's conclusion that state protection and internal relocation were available was not susceptible to challenge on judicial review; accordingly leave was dismissed.
11 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the Applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's decision, the return application was voluntary, and the Applicant's allegations were general without particulars and did not constitute viable grounds for judicial review.
7 May 2026
Court granted the applicant's request to withdraw the permission application because the Court was satisfied on the evidence and documents that the withdrawal was voluntary and informed and that the applicant understood the consequence that the appeal board's decision would become final; accordingly the permission is revoked.
6 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse findings on credibility and lack of documentary evidence were within its fact-finding remit, there was no evidential basis for the asserted risks, state protection and internal relocation were found viable, and the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without particulars raising an arguable error of law or procedural unfairness.
6 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; absent viable grounds the Court of Appeal will not overturn the judge or re‑adjudicate the Board's factual assessments.
30 Apr 2026
Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because she did not identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that there was no evidence of contact or of ability to locate the applicant, no evidence of ill‑treatment, that internal relocation was viable and that state protection was available were reasonable and supported dismissal; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
15 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or substantiate any viable ground to reverse the judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; absent demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Board or judge, the court will not intervene.
1 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to articulate any legal grounds for review or rely on evidence that had been considered by the Board; the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the claim lacked realistic prospects of success.