20 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk and the viability of internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
6 May 2026
Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because the application was filed well beyond the three-month limit and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the court will not overturn the Board's fact-finding, and procedural non-compliance (Order 80 r 2) was treated as a mere irregularity not rendering the application a nullity.
15 Apr 2026
The Director and the immigration officer considered the additional material and relevant country information and correctly concluded there was no significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and therefore no realistic prospect of success; leave to apply for judicial review is refused and an RPO is necessary to prevent abuse by the applicant re-litigating identical grounds.
3 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant raised no arguable ground: the Board's findings that state protection was available, that alleged harms were speculative, and that internal relocation was viable were not shown to be legally irrational or procedurally unfair, so the applicant has no realistic prospect of success.
30 Dec 2025
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to raise any valid legal ground or show a realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on credibility, lack of factual basis, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation were not shown to be unlawful, irrational or procedurally unfair.
2 Dec 2025
Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable or realistic prospect of success in judicial review because the Board's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that no substantial risk of torture, death or persecution existed, that state protection was available and that internal relocation was viable were supported by the evidence and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; accordingly leave was refused.
23 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and reliance on COI and conclusions on internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and did not give rise to a realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
10 Jun 2025
The applicant failed to demonstrate the significant change of circumstances or any new substantiated evidence that, when combined with prior material, would give his subsequent non-refoulement claim a realistic prospect of success under section 37ZO; the Director's decision was not shown to be unlawful or unreasonable; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed; an RPO was warranted to prevent further abusive, duplicative proceedings.
25 Feb 2025
The applicant failed to show a significant change of circumstances under section 37ZO and thus had no realistic prospect of success in judicial review; the Director lawfully refused the subsequent claim on findings of lack of substantiation and availability of state protection; because the applicant repeatedly pursued the same claims and risked further abuse of process, a five-year Restricted Proceedings Order was justified and proportionate.
12 Apr 2024
Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its factual province and open on the evidence; the Director's Decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board is pursued.