12 Feb 2026
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error in the Court of Appeal's prior judgment and did not raise any question of great and general public importance as required by s22(1)(b) Cap 484, nor any basis under the 'otherwise' limb to justify leave; therefore the application lacked merit.
27 Feb 2024
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or other basis showing the Deputy Judge was plainly wrong; the Board's findings that the risk arose from a private actor, that Philippines protection was available, and that relocation was a viable mitigation meant the case did not disclose a reasonably arguable ground for judicial review or a BOR 3/torture risk.
7 Dec 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully exercised its discretion in refusing to extend time where the underlying BOR 2 claim lacked arguable merit, the Board's determinations fell within its fact-finding province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial review.
10 Feb 2022
Because the delay was insignificant and the intended appeal lacked any prospect of success (no error of law or procedural unfairness identified by the applicant), the Court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons.
25 Jan 2022
Leave refused because the Board's adverse credibility findings were dispositive and open to the fact-finding tribunal, and even if the applicant's account were accepted the Board correctly found no real risk of ill-treatment, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life and that state protection and internal relocation were available; therefore there was no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality to justify judicial review.
10 Jun 2021
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or relevant omission by the Deputy Judge; the Board's accepted factual findings and credibility conclusions meant there was no reasonable prospect of success, and absent legal error or plain wrongness the Court will not disturb the refusal of leave.
23 Apr 2021
Refusal to grant extension of time affirmed because the applicant's delay of about ten months was substantial and inexcusable, and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success: the grounds were broad, vague and lacked particulars and the judge had given adequate reasons identifying no error of law warranting leave or an extension of time.
29 Jan 2021
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or any reasonably arguable ground to impugn the Deputy Judge’s refusal of leave; the Board’s factual conclusions (incident over nine years earlier, no evidence ABB persists, and feasible internal relocation) were rational and not shown to be legally flawed, so leave was rightly refused.
19 Jun 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate errors of law, failure to consider relevant matters, or that the Judge's decision was plainly wrong; the Judge's refusal to grant leave for judicial review was therefore justified.
19 Jun 2019
The Judge correctly found the applicant's grounds to be bare and unmeritorious, there was no demonstrated error of law or failure to take into account relevant matters, and therefore the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review was upheld and the appeal dismissed.