9 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's factual findings, which were open on the evidence.
10 Mar 2026
The application for leave was dismissed and extension of time refused because the applicant provided no arguable grounds of judicial review and no satisfactory explanation for a delay of over three months; the Board's decision represented a proper anxious scrutiny of the facts and was not shown to be vitiated by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
29 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the TCAB decision, when anxiously scrutinised, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Applicant's complaints were unsubstantiated and did not present a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success.
26 Apr 2024
The applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness by the Deputy Judge or the Board; the grounds were bare allegations without particularity, factual assertions were contradicted by record (interpreter and duty lawyer provided, applicant heard), and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 2022
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s.22(1)(b), failed to show how the legal provisions invoked related to the case, and the application contained demonstrable factual inconsistencies; therefore the statutory requirements for leave were not met.
4 Jan 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the applicant withdrew the application and stated he was safe to return, and the court exercised its discretion to refuse relief that would serve no practical purpose, following AW v Director of Immigration and established authorities.
6 Aug 2021
The applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review or to particularize errors; the Judge correctly concluded there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's credibility findings and properly refused leave; the appeal was dismissed.
11 Oct 2019
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant has no arguable point and raises no question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap.484; the Board's decision was rightly and fairly made and the Judge did not err in refusing leave.
11 Mar 2019
The Court of Appeal held that the Deputy Judge correctly applied the legal standards: the Adjudicator and Director properly considered state protection and acquiescence, made lawful and reasonable findings which were not Wednesbury unreasonable, procedural fairness was achieved and the applicant had no realistic prospects of success; accordingly leave for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
15 Jun 2018
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the question raised met the s22(1)(b) threshold of great general or public importance or otherwise warranted CFA consideration, and failed to show a realistic prospect of success or a cogent explanation beyond previously advanced submissions.