10 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable, particularised grounds to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; under binding authority the Court of Appeal's role is confined to the grounds advanced and not to rehear the substantive non-refoulement decision, and the applicant's procedural non-compliance warranted disposal on paper.
25 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant admitted the Board's Decision was not wrong, the Board conducted a hearing and made findings that the claimed risks were unsubstantiated, the Director's Decision was superseded by the Board so the Director's decision could not be challenged once appeal pursued, and established authority holds that lack of free legal representation or continuous translation does not by itself amount to procedural unfairness; therefore the applicant had no realistic prospect of success.
11 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify a reasonably arguable ground; the Board conducted a fair assessment, its factual findings and risk assessment were within its remit and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant cannot rely on fresh evidence not placed before the Board to found judicial review.
17 Dec 2025
The Board lawfully refused to allow the 90-day late filing because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the whole period of delay and breached the statutory duty to notify change of address under s37ZA(2); the Board properly considered the merits for special circumstances under s37ZT and concluded none existed; no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
19 Nov 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was filed five months out of time with no good reason to extend, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the risk of harm was assessed as low and localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
16 Oct 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by the applicant's refusal to give evidence and by inconsistencies, and the factual conclusions that state protection and internal relocation were available meant the BOR 2 ground was not engaged, so no prospect of success on judicial review.
7 Jan 2025
Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the Applicant was more than six months late without any explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's findings, and their conclusions that risk was low and that state protection and internal relocation were available were lawful and not irrational.
3 Sept 2024
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's filing was substantially out of time (over one year) without any satisfactory explanation; the pleaded grounds were bare, vague and not reasonably arguable; and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions which had properly assessed low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation; further, the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
8 Aug 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's detailed adverse credibility findings and conclusions that any risk was localized and internal relocation and state protection in Bangladesh were reasonably available; judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits.
7 Mar 2024
Refusal to extend time and refusal of leave because the applicant was out of time (delay >16 months) and failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the Board gave adequate reasons, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and its findings of low risk, availability of state protection and viable internal relocation were lawful and not irrational.