21 Jul 2023
The renewed application to extend time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant's delay was inordinate and inadequately explained and the intended appeal had no real prospect of success given the lack of viable grounds and the reasonableness of the Board's and Judge's decisions; granting an extension would therefore be futile.
19 Oct 2022
The renewed application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant was significantly out of time, raised new fact-and-evidence sensitive grounds that could not properly be entertained on renewal, failed to identify any error in the Board's adverse credibility findings or in the Leave Decision, and therefore had no realistic prospect of success making extension futile.
25 Oct 2019
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b) CFAO, failed to specify any public law error with sufficient particulars, and failed to demonstrate procedural unfairness or real prejudice from alleged inadequate legal representation; the grounds were not reasonably arguable and there was no basis under the 'otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b).
9 Jan 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: the Board's and Director's decisions showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness; the Board superseded the Director and the specific complaints (legal representation, letters, interview, translation) lacked merit or were factually unfounded.
16 Nov 2018
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness; the Board's adverse credibility finding was within its province and not tainted by legal error, Sakthevel Prabakar does not mandate automatic continued legal representation, and there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
26 Oct 2018
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the proposed grounds either were not part of the case before the Deputy Judge or this Court or did not raise any question of great, general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap.484; consequently the statutory condition for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was not satisfied.
14 Sept 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate actual unfairness from lack of written translation or legal representation, failed to specify any mistranslation or additional evidence he would have provided, and the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were reasonably open on the evidence; accordingly there was no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
10 Aug 2018
The absence of a translation of the NCF did not constitute a breach of the high standards of fairness because the form was completed with Duty Lawyer assistance on the applicant’s instructions, the applicant failed to identify any specific mistranslation or resultant prejudice, had access to interpretation and could have clarified issues at the Board hearing but declined to give evidence; accordingly there was no reasonably arguable ground and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
6 Aug 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant could not demonstrate any error of law or procedural unfairness by the adjudicator, provided no additional evidence on the BOR 2 ground, and there was no reasonably arguable basis or realistic prospect of success to challenge the determinations properly made by the Director and adjudicator.
26 Jul 2018
The notice of motion was dismissed and leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay (statutory 28‑day limit had expired) and the intended appeal lacked merit and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484.