19 Mar 2026
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant showed substantial unexplained delay with feeble excuses, failed to file required written submissions, raised only general and irrelevant allegations without particulars, identified no question of great general or public importance under s 22(1)(b), and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
5 May 2023
The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision or in the Judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were within its fact‑finding province and not Wednesbury unreasonable, therefore leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused and the appeal is dismissed.
7 Dec 2021
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal and no question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; accordingly leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused.
22 Jun 2021
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both decision-makers reasonably found low risk given lack of specific targeting, available state protection and viable internal relocation as supported by COI, and the applicant's grounds were vague and not particularized.
27 Feb 2019
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance and did not advance any reasonably arguable legal basis under the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the grounds did not sufficiently challenge the judge's analysis or establish bias or legal error.
3 Dec 2018
The application to extend time to appeal was refused because the applicant was late by about one month, provided no explanation for the delay, gave no proposed grounds or particulars demonstrating any realistic prospect of success, and the leave judge correctly found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the decisions of the Director and the Board; absence of prospects of success is decisive against granting an extension of time.
27 Sept 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant's grounds were broad and lacking particulars, the Board's and Director's reliance on COI and assessment of low risk and availability of state protection and internal relocation were not shown to contain legal error or procedural unfairness, and there was no realistic prospect of success such as would justify granting leave; judicial review is supervisory and not a rehearing of the merits.