19 May 2026
The applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision or in the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's credibility and risk findings were open on the evidence and the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave is therefore upheld.
24 Apr 2026
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; both decision‑makers reasonably found the risk was localized, low in intensity, subject to available state protection and internal relocation, and therefore the applicant had no prospect of success on judicial review.
8 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility finding and conclusion that internal relocation was viable are factually open to it, and the human rights complaint was unparticularised and thus not a viable ground of appeal.
13 Aug 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had examined the evidence and COI, applied correct legal principles, found no real risk of harm and that internal relocation was available, so there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
13 Feb 2025
Leave was refused because both the Director and the Board gave reasons, the applicant had interpreter assistance and had legal representation at screening but elected not to give further evidence at the Board, the alleged past ill-treatment was localized and of low intensity, state protection and reasonable internal relocation within Nepal were available, and there was no identifiable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decisions sufficient to found an arguable judicial review claim.
27 Jan 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions that the loans were not established, threats were verbal and unlikely to materialize, and that state protection and internal relocation were available were within the Board's primary fact-finding province; no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness was identified and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable.
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.
19 Oct 2023
Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; both bodies reasonably concluded the risk was low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and judicial review cannot substitute for the primary evaluative role of the Director and the Board; additionally the applicant indicated it was safe to return.
25 Mar 2021
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, which lawfully found the risk localized, state protection and reasonable internal relocation were available, and therefore no prospect of success on judicial review was shown; the applicant subsequently confirmed withdrawal.
12 Mar 2021
Because the Board's adverse credibility finding was based on detailed consideration of oral evidence and answers, and because the Director and Board rationally concluded the risk was localized with reasonable internal relocation available, there was no arguable legal error or procedural unfairness; consequently leave to apply for judicial review was refused.