13 Apr 2026
The Deputy Judge did not err in refusing leave because the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were open to it, the applicant advanced no viable legal grounds of error (law, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and therefore judicial review was not reasonably arguable; appeal dismissed.
8 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to advance any reasonable arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety; the Board had conducted anxious scrutiny of factual issues, found no reliable evidence of a real risk of harm or requisite severity and reasonably assessed availability of state protection, thus its decision was lawful and rational.
17 Mar 2026
The Leave Application was dismissed as out of time and, on the merits, the Board's Decision was lawful, rational and fair with no arguable legal error or realistic prospect of success, so no extension of time should be granted.
27 Feb 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's decision refusing extension of time and dismissing the leave application; she did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success and sought to introduce new grounds not before the court below, while the Board's factual findings on low risk, availability of state protection and internal relocation were reasonable and unchallenged by error of law.
13 Feb 2026
The application for extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the applicant filed out of time without explanation, the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable or had no realistic prospect of success, and the Director lawfully applied s37ZO by finding no significant change since the prior determination and properly having regard to prior findings (including state protection); there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and refusing leave caused no unfair prejudice.
9 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the claim was unsubstantiated, state protection was available and internal relocation was viable were within the Board's fact-finding province and not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
21 Oct 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 1615/2024 is granted because the applicant has demonstrated reasonably arguable grounds that the Board's Decision is legally flawed, procedurally unfair and potentially irrational in its assessment of risk of harm, state protection and internal relocation, while HCAL 2186/2020 was properly withdrawn/dismissed by the applicant.
9 Oct 2025
Leave is granted because it is at least arguable that the Board's Decision was unreasonable and tainted by procedural unfairness due to failures to properly investigate and consider medical/scar evidence, to seek clarification on the loan shark's alleged extensive connections, and to adequately assess relevant COI on state protection and internal relocation; an extension of time to file Form 86 is justified in the interests of justice given the prospects of success.
25 Sept 2025
The judge did not err in refusing leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable public law error; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were open to it and were supported by reasons; there was no procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial review, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
2 Sept 2025
Applicant was 18 days out of time with no explanation; the NRCPO Decision was supported by adequate inquiry, evidence and reasons and involved factual findings properly open to it; on merits the application lacked substance; therefore no extension of time should be granted and the leave application must be dismissed.