31 Dec 2020
The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness by the Deputy Judge, failed to raise substantive grounds with particulars, and the impugned assessments of credibility and COI were within the Board's province; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was rightly refused and the appeal dismissed.
31 Dec 2020
Applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument despite warning, so the hearing was vacated and the appeal determined on paper; on the merits the Board's adverse credibility findings were not shown to involve error of law or procedural impropriety and the Deputy Judge correctly found no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; therefore the appeal was without merit and dismissed.
12 Nov 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were vague and unparticularised, the Board conducted a fair oral hearing and provided detailed reasons for adverse credibility findings, the risk assessment and internal relocation conclusions were matters for the Director and Board absent legal error, and no arguable legal or procedural defect was identified to justify leave to apply for judicial review.
14 Aug 2020
Leave to apply for judicial review was correctly refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that state protection and internal relocation were available were rational and supported by the record; the application had no realistic prospect of success and the appeal court will not re-assess primary findings of fact or credibility on appeal.
14 Jun 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the Court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and the Board's decisions; the applicant failed to show any arguable prospect of success for judicial review and had abandoned the oral hearing by failing to lodge skeleton submissions despite warning, so there was no basis to disturb the decisions below.
23 Nov 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistically sustainable ground of judicial review: the Board and Director made permissible findings, including adverse credibility and absence of real risk, which were neither Wednesbury unreasonable nor legally flawed, and the applicant had been given reasonable opportunity to present evidence; procedural non-compliance with skeleton argument requirements justified proceeding on the available materials and did not prejudice the outcome.
15 Nov 2018
The Court held that the Director and the Board had given balanced and adequate consideration to the applicant's account and COI, correctly applied the law, and made findings that were not Wednesbury unreasonable; the Judge correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review as the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of leave.