19 Dec 2025
Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn the Board's factual findings absent legal error, irrationality or unfairness.
12 Nov 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or the Board's decisions; both bodies properly assessed the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment, found the dispute private, concluded state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available, and judicial review cannot be used to re‑weigh those factual assessments.
22 Jul 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both bodies applied correct legal principles, reasonably assessed credibility, found the risk from private creditors localized and low, and concluded that state protection and internal relocation rendered non-refoulement protection unwarranted; the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
24 Jun 2025
Extension of time was refused because the applicant was more than nine months late, offered no explanation for the substantial delay, and the intended challenge lacked any identified legal error or prospect of success; the Board's and Director's decisions with respect to credibility, low risk, availability of state protection and reasonable internal relocation withstand rigorous scrutiny, so leave was refused and the application dismissed.
2 Jul 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 Director’s or Board’s decisions; those decisions reasonably found the risk to be localized, state protection and internal relocation feasible, and thus no substantial grounds for a real risk were established.
10 Nov 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; the Board’s adverse credibility findings and the availability of internal relocation were properly reached and not amenable to judicial review as a rehearing of facts.
8 Apr 2022
Leave refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; credibility findings were supported, the risk was assessed as low, and reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
6 Apr 2022
Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; those decision‑makers reasonably concluded the risk was localized, state protection and internal relocation were available, and credibility concerns justified dismissal, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
17 May 2019
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any legal error in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's detailed findings were based on the evidence, the claim was assessed as a private localized dispute with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant's grounds were vague and lacked particulars, so there was no realistic prospect of success.
19 Oct 2018
Leave refused because the Board's decision was within lawful bounds: applicant failed to demonstrate a real risk to his right to life or that state protection was unavailable; internal relocation in India was a reasonable alternative; no procedural unfairness or legal error was established; the Board's decision overtook the Director's earlier decision and there was no prospect of success for judicial review.