30 Mar 2026
Leave refused because the applicant failed to advance any arguable ground and the Board's Decision was comprehensive and free of legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality, rendering the challenge without realistic prospects of success.
20 Mar 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify arguable legal grounds and the TCAB decision, which accepted much of her account, reasonably concluded the risk was low and that state protection and relocation were available, with no discernible error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 Mar 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant's grounds were vague and generic, failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the TCAB's adverse credibility and probative-value findings were supported by the evidence such that there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
19 Nov 2025
The leave application was dismissed because the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, which met the enhanced Wednesbury standard in non-refoulement cases, and the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
15 Oct 2025
Leave dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable case of errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB decision; the TCAB had considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles, and reasonably concluded the applicant did not establish grounds and that state protection and internal relocation were available.
2 Jul 2025
The application was refused because it was filed 102 days after the deadline (more than three months) and the applicant presented no arguable grounds demonstrating a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings that the risks were low, state protection and internal relocation were available, and that thresholds under BOR 2 and 3 and non-refoulement were not met were not shown to be legally flawed, irrational or procedurally unfair, so extension of time was denied and the leave application dismissed.
25 Apr 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success; the TCAB properly considered the evidence, applied correct legal principles to the USM grounds, found internal relocation available and there was no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
10 Jan 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judge's refusal of leave or in the Board's factual credibility findings; the Board rejected the factual basis of the claim and there was no realistic prospect of success to justify judicial review, so the Court will not re-open the merits.
15 Nov 2024
The applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings were supported by omissions, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration and fell squarely within the Board's fact‑finding discretion; there was no legal error or procedural unfairness warranting intervention, so leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
18 Apr 2023
The Director permissibly exercised discretion under s37ZO by refusing permission for a subsequent claim because the Applicant failed to produce sufficient written evidence of a significant change of circumstances that, together with prior material, would give a realistic prospect of success; there was no procedural unfairness in deciding without a screening interview; and a Restricted Proceedings Order was justified under s27 High Court Ordinance and the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent further vexatious re‑litigation of finally determined non‑refoulement claims.