21 May 2026
The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the applicant withdrew the application and expressly requested to return to India and close his cases, leaving no outstanding live issue in the action; accordingly there was no basis to extend time to appeal.
21 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision, and the court could not detect any reasonable basis to quash the decision.
18 May 2026
Permission was refused because the applicant failed to identify a reviewable decision, relied on incoherent and speculative allegations without objective evidence, sought remedies outside the scope of judicial review, and therefore had no real prospect of success such that the application constituted an abuse of process.
18 May 2026
The applicant's grounds were vague and lacking particulars, he failed to show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed credibility and risk findings, and therefore his challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success; leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed.
15 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because no reviewable decision existed at the time of the leave application; therefore there was no cause of action and the appeal fails.
15 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were factual, lawfully reached and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, irrationality or error of law, so the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
15 May 2026
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to overturn the refusal and the withdrawal of his appeal was voluntary and therefore valid, so there was no error in the Board acceding to the withdrawal.
14 May 2026
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant did not identify a question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, provided no particulars or reasonably arguable grounds, and breached directions by failing to file written submissions, so there was no basis to grant leave including under the "otherwise" limb.
13 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal ground; the Board's findings of fact and assessments of risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its exclusive remit and were not vitiated by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the enhanced Wednesbury test was not breached.
13 May 2026
Because the applicant admitted relying on the same reasons as in her previously dismissed claim, there was no significant change under s37ZO and no realistic prospect of success in the subsequent claim; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused and an RPO was necessary to prevent abuse of process.