29 Apr 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; his allegations were general, lacked particulars or supporting evidence, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Board's Decision or the Leave Decision; therefore there was no basis to interfere on appeal.
23 Dec 2025
The application was struck out because it constituted an abuse of the two-tier administrative scheme for torture/non-refoulement claims: the applicant failed to pursue the statutory petition to the Board and sought judicial review of a Director's decision that, under the established authorities, is not properly susceptible to judicial review once the Board process exists and when a BOR 3 finding is final, thereby precluding an arguable BOR 2 claim.
17 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure, the Board's adverse factual findings did not disclose any public law error, the delay in bringing the application was lengthy and inadequately explained so no extension of time was justified, and the intended challenges lacked realistic prospects of success on the merits.
29 Aug 2025
The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; the TCAB/NRCPO's credibility findings, risk assessments, state protection conclusions and internal relocation finding were within its province and showed no procedural unfairness, legal error or irrationality sufficient to vitiate the decision.
6 Feb 2025
The Board applied the correct legal principles under the USM, made findings of fact based on evidence and credible COI, and its conclusions that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof and that return would not create a real risk were not legally flawed or Wednesbury unreasonable; therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
18 Mar 2024
Leave to amend the Form 86 was granted to correct the Decision date to 19 March 2021; leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's Decision contained no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would justify judicial intervention, its findings on state protection and internal relocation were lawful and dispositive, and the applicant's challenges amounted to an impermissible re-assessment of facts with no realistic prospect of success.
4 Mar 2024
Leave was refused because the Board applied the correct legal tests, accepted the applicant's factual account, found on objective evidence that state protection and internal relocation were available and that the applicant had not established risk under any USM ground; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
27 Feb 2024
The Board conducted a de novo hearing, correctly applied the law under the USM and refugee instruments, found the applicant's central evidence unreliable and inconsistent and that she failed to establish a real risk of harm or prejudice from lack of counsel or language assistance; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the judicial review application had no realistic prospect of success.
20 May 2022
Leave was refused because the applicant advanced no arguable ground of law; the Board lawfully and reasonably found the violence arose from a private monetary dispute, did not amount to torture, persecution or BOR2/BOR3 breaches, and state protection was available; the late allegation of a murder occurring after the Decision could not be used to invalidate the Decision and should be pursued as a subsequent claim under s37ZO, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
12 May 2022
Leave was refused because the Board lawfully concluded the applicant's harm arose from a private money‑lending dispute rather than persecution or torture, the injuries were minor, there was no evidence of state acquiescence or targeting, effective state protection was available, and the Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality such that judicial review could succeed.