17 Dec 2024
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, raised no reasonably arguable error in the Court of Appeal's judgment, and disclosed no basis under the "otherwise" limb to grant leave.
12 Jun 2023
Extension of time was refused because the applicant's delay was substantial and unexplained, and, critically, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the absence of identified errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions and the Judge's refusal of leave was justified.
12 Jun 2023
The Court refused the extension of time because the applicant failed to demonstrate any viable ground of appeal or any error in the Judge's refusal of leave for judicial review, there was no realistic prospect of success, and therefore granting an extension would be futile.
23 Jun 2022
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay in seeking judicial review was inordinate, he failed to attend the Board hearing and did not adequately explain his absence or cooperate, the intended judicial review had no reasonable prospect of success, and the alleged lack of language/legal assistance did not amount to procedural unfairness sufficient to reverse the Judge's discretionary refusal to extend time or to grant leave.
10 Jan 2022
Applicant failed to identify any specific error of law or procedural unfairness in the Deputy Judge’s Leave Decision; the delay was minimal but the intended appeal had no real prospect of success; accordingly extension of time would be futile and must be refused.
7 May 2021
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of leave because the applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; authorities establish no entitlement to free legal representation or language assistance at all stages and credibility findings properly made by the Board were supported by reasons and not susceptible to judicial interference.
23 Apr 2021
The Board correctly applied the law and observed a high standard of fairness; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's assessment that the applicant did not face torture, BOR 2/3 or persecution risk given available state protection and internal relocation; the applicant's claims were not reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success, therefore leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
5 Nov 2019
The Court refused leave to appeal because the applicant failed to raise any arguable point or any question of great general or public importance as required by s.22(1)(b) Cap.484, the matters advanced were a repetition of previously rejected grounds and there was no prospect of success in the intended appeal.
30 Apr 2019
Leave was refused because the Adjudicator's decision was supported by adequate reasons, was not Wednesbury unreasonable, involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, the Applicants had reasonable opportunities and assistance to present their case, and the complaints were not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success.