30 Apr 2025
Extension of time was refused because the applicant was approximately four months out of time, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, the decision had been sent to his last known address, and the intended appeal disclosed no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness and therefore had no prospect of success.
27 Jan 2025
The applicant failed to identify any sufficiently particularised or reasonably arguable errors of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's assessment of the Board's decision; the Board had considered evidence including country information and had invited the applicant to give evidence; therefore there was no basis to grant leave and the Judge's refusal was correctly upheld, so the appeal is dismissed.
13 Dec 2024
The Board’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real or substantial risk, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were findings of fact made within its province; no legal error, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness was demonstrated and the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable, therefore leave is refused.
26 Apr 2024
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law by the Deputy Judge or the Board; the Board's adverse credibility finding and factual assessments (severity, internal relocation, absence of state involvement) were within its remit and not susceptible to judicial review absent legal error.
2 Jul 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, failure to consider relevant matters or that the Judge's refusal of leave was plainly wrong; the Board's fact-finding and assessment of country of origin material were within its province and were not shown to be flawed.
19 Jun 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the Judge correctly concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review: the applicant's grounds were bare, he failed to provide evidence to support his claims, and no error of law or failure to consider relevant matters was shown that would justify overturning the refusal of leave.
22 Feb 2019
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the applicant merely sought a re‑evaluation of factual findings which does not justify granting leave for judicial review, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
21 Jan 2019
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to establish reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review; the Director's and Board's factual and legal determinations rejecting BOR Article 3 and Article 2 claims were open to them and eminently reasonable; and new, vague grounds raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.
24 Dec 2018
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or bias that would justify judicial review; the applicant had interpreter access at the Board hearing, submitted no additional material that could have altered the BOR 2 assessment, and legal precedent confirms no absolute right to free representation or to an oral hearing in these circumstances.
22 Aug 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the Deputy High Court Judge correctly concluded there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board lawfully and reasonably found material inconsistencies, unreliable documentary evidence, lack of evidence of state involvement or police interest, and adequate consideration of COI and state protection, such that the Board's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and refusal of leave was appropriate.