20 May 2026
The leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time without explanation and, on the merits, the Board's Decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and therefore the applicant has no reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success.
19 May 2026
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board reasonably found the risk to be a localized private dispute, reasonably assessed credibility, and properly concluded state protection and internal relocation were available such that there was no realistic Article 3 or persecution risk warranting non-refoulement protection.
18 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the Board's decision contained no arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board's adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were open on the evidence and the claim did not meet the legal thresholds for non-refoulement or torture under the USM, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
18 May 2026
Leave was refused because the Board's decision showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board lawfully and reasonably assessed the evidence against the USM threshold and its factual findings are within its exclusive remit, so the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success.
13 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground, the Board's findings on credibility, country information, availability of state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and lawful reasoning, and no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality was shown in the Board's decision.
6 May 2026
Extension of time refused because the applicant was over fifteen months late, her explanation for the delay was implausible and the intended application lacked merit; leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Board's Decision contained detailed, adequate reasons, its credibility findings and assessment of evidence were within its remit, and no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality was identified.
29 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant failed to present a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed the evidence, reasonably concluded internal relocation in India was viable, and its decision disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury irrationality.
22 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground of review; the Board conducted a full, fair hearing, considered evidence and COI, made credibility findings and concluded there was no real risk of proscribed harm; the court found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the Board's decision met the applicable standard of review (enhanced Wednesbury).
22 Apr 2026
Extension of time to file the leave application was refused because the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success: the immigration officer correctly applied section 37ZO, there was no significant change of circumstances, the Board had rejected key factual assertions (informer role) and state protection/internal relocation remained available; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's decision, so leave was refused and extension denied.
21 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the Form 86 failed to identify any reasonably arguable grounds; the NRCPO's refusal of late filing displayed no procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard; and remittal would be futile because there was no realistic prospect of a different outcome given prior findings rejecting the substantive non-refoulement claims.