22 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds showing the judge erred in law, acted with procedural unfairness or that the Board's factual findings were Wednesbury unreasonable; the Board's findings were open on the evidence and the Court will not reweigh those findings on appeal.
24 Mar 2026
The applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's factual findings that there was no intention or capability by the alleged persecutor to harm or track the applicant were open on the evidence and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
3 Mar 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant did not identify any legal error or procedural unfairness in the judge's refusal of leave; the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by the evidence and open to it, and the applicant's unsupported assertions did not meet the threshold for judicial review leave or for overturning the Board's decision.
19 Jan 2026
The Board applied the correct legal tests and standards and made permissible factual findings based on inadequately detailed evidence; the applicant failed to identify any public law error or arguable grounds in Form 86 and therefore the leave application had no realistic prospect of success and must be dismissed.
19 Dec 2025
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify or plead arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not demonstrate that the Board's factual findings involved error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly the proposed challenge was not reasonably arguable and did not meet the threshold for granting leave.
12 Nov 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the TCAB decision; the TCAB's factual findings were supported by evidence and within its discretion, and therefore there was no basis for the Court to intervene.
15 Oct 2025
Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds or provide material disclosure; the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were supported, the Board applied the law correctly, and no public law errors (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) were established such that the challenge was not reasonably arguable.
9 Oct 2025
Leave to appeal refused because applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the intended grounds predominantly seek to reargue and overturn trial findings of fact without demonstrating the findings were plainly wrong or that the judge erred in law; challenges to refusal of late amendment and evidential weight lack merit; therefore threshold for leave under s63A(2) not met.
26 Sept 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of public law error; the Board's findings that there was no torture, no real risk of harm and that state protection was available were supported by the material before it and did not involve error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would permit interference on judicial review.
12 Aug 2025
Leave was refused because the Board properly applied the law and fairness standards, its adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were open to it, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that the challenge was reasonably arguable.