19 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; the appellate role is limited to the grounds advanced and deference is owed to the Board's factual assessments.
19 May 2026
The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and rejection of the non‑refoulement claim were open to it and did not provide a basis for judicial review, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
15 May 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable, substantiated ground to reverse the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision.
12 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings and conclusions on severity, state protection and internal relocation were open on the evidence and implicated no reasonably arguable public law error; the Deputy Judge therefore correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review.
12 May 2026
The Judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's factual findings on credibility and state protection were open to it on the evidence and not irrational, and the court will not re‑examine the merits on an appeal against refusal of leave.
11 May 2026
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to advance any viable ground showing error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's BOR 2 decision, produced no new evidence after a prior BOR 3 rejection, and therefore the judge correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review.
7 May 2026
The appeal fails because the applicant presented only bare allegations without particulars and identified no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the judge's refusal of leave; therefore there is no viable ground to disturb the judge's order refusing leave to apply for judicial review.
30 Apr 2026
Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success because she did not identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's Decision; the Board's factual findings that there was no evidence of contact or of ability to locate the applicant, no evidence of ill‑treatment, that internal relocation was viable and that state protection was available were reasonable and supported dismissal; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
30 Apr 2026
The applicant's grounds were bare allegations without particulars and did not demonstrate any error in the judge's refusal of leave; there were no viable grounds to disturb the judge's decision, so the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 2026
The applicant failed to identify or substantiate any error in the judge's decision refusing leave; the grounds advanced were inaccurate and lacked substance; therefore there was no basis to overturn the refusal of leave and the appeal was dismissed.