21 Jul 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review or any error of law or procedural irregularity in the Board's decision; accordingly the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave was correct and not open to appellate disturbance under the applicable standard.
28 Feb 2023
Extension of time was refused and the application dismissed because the applicant's delay (about five and a half months) was unjustified, there was no realistic prospect of success on the substantive non-refoulement/torture claim, and any procedural defect under section 15 of Schedule 1A was rendered excused by the applicant's failure to keep contact details updated so that the Board could give notice; adverse credibility findings were properly open to the Board under section 37ZD.
15 Dec 2022
The leave application was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; their findings that the risk was localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and that the Applicant's account was largely hearsay and speculative were defensible on the evidence, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
7 Jan 2022
Leave 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 conclusion that internal relocation was available were within the permissible evaluative range and there was no prospect of success on judicial review.
19 Nov 2021
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without any explanation for the substantial delay and the intended judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and thorough reasoning were unchallenged by any identifiable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness, and judicial review cannot be used to rehear the merits of a non-refoulement claim.
30 Aug 2021
The application for extension of time was dismissed because the delay was serious, the applicant's reasons for delay were unsatisfactory and he failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of appeal; the Board's and Director's decisions contained no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness, so the intended appeal had no prospect of success and it was futile to extend time.
31 May 2021
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's adverse credibility finding following oral evidence was rational and the availability of internal relocation negated justification for non-refoulement protection.
4 Mar 2019
The appeal fails because the Judge correctly applied the legal test for leave to apply for judicial review, provided adequate reasons, and the applicant failed to particularise any arguable grounds or demonstrate error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; accordingly the refusal of leave is upheld.
2 Nov 2018
Extension of time refused because the applicant's 17‑day delay was unjustified, she did not request a hearing, she had ample prior opportunity to present evidence to the Director and Board, and the intended appeal had no reasonably arguable prospect of success.
28 Sept 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant advanced broad, vague and unparticularised grounds without realistic prospects of success; the Board and Director lawfully and reasonably found no specific targeting or state involvement, internal relocation in Bangladesh was available, credibility findings were open on the evidence and no procedural unfairness was established.