6 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable grounds demonstrating that the Judge erred in refusing leave; there was no identified error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and the Court of Appeal will not reassess the Board's factual determinations.
6 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any arguable legal ground; the Board's findings on credibility and risk were supported by the evidence, involved lawful fact‑finding and assessment, and contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; consequently the application lacked realistic prospects of success.
17 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground to reverse the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's findings on risk, state protection and COI were open to it and there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
22 Feb 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any viable grounds to impugn the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Deputy Judge correctly found no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Director's and Board's assessments, including findings of localized risk and availability of state protection/internal relocation, so leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
18 May 2021
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant raised new grounds late, provided no credible evidence to rebut the Board’s findings that she faced no real risk of harm, and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance warranting referral under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.
11 Feb 2021
Leave was refused because the applicant advanced no reasonably arguable public law ground; the Board’s decision to reject the non-refoulement claim was neither legally erroneous nor procedurally unfair nor irrational given the evidence and findings on risk, state protection and internal relocation, so there was no prospect of success on judicial review.