14 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error; the Board made permissible credibility findings and considered alternative legal grounds; there was no irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting quashing of the decision.
20 Apr 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the TCAB applied correct legal principles and its factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, so there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review.
12 Feb 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB had properly considered the evidence, applied the correct legal principles, and reasonably rejected the applicant's allegations on credibility and evidential grounds, such that no reasonably arguable challenge existed.
6 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision, which satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard applicable in non-refoulement cases.
4 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the NRCPO reasonably accepted the applicant's core account but correctly concluded there were no substantial grounds to believe he faced a real risk under Articles 2 or 3 or persecution given available state protection and internal relocation options, and the applicant did not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision below.
9 Jul 2025
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision and therefore the proposed judicial review is not reasonably arguable; the court will not reassess TCAB's primary factual findings in absence of such error.
27 May 2025
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, which was comprehensive, properly assessed the evidence, satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury test and was not reasonably arguable as having realistic prospects of success.
16 May 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's factual and legal assessment; the Board applied the correct legal principles and its conclusions were open on the evidence, so the application was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
22 Oct 2024
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant demonstrated a very substantial and insufficiently explained delay and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as no viable grounds were advanced to challenge the Board's credibility findings or show legal error, rendering an extension futile.
12 Jun 2024
The application for extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant had no realistic prospect of success: the Deputy Judge had properly and rigorously scrutinised the Board's Decision and found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the grounds advanced on appeal were new, unparticularised and primarily directed at the Board and Director rather than showing error in the Leave Decision, so it was futile to extend time.