8 May 2026
Leave was refused because the Board's decision satisfied the enhanced Wednesbury standard and there were no arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Director's decision was not individually reviewable after appeal to the Board.
24 Apr 2026
The Board applied the correct law, observed a high standard of fairness and made fact findings within its province; no public law error was shown, so the applicant's challenge was not reasonably arguable and leave was refused.
24 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify grounds or make full disclosure in Form 86, did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's detailed factual determinations, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.
16 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable public law grounds; the TCAB/NRCPO had lawfully and rationally assessed evidence, state protection and internal relocation and found no real risk on Torture, BOR2, BOR3 or Persecution grounds; no procedural unfairness or error of law was established to justify judicial review.
16 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to particularise any reasonably arguable public law ground (error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality) capable of vitiating the TCAB/NRCPO decision; the TCAB's adverse credibility findings and its conclusions on torture, BOR2/BOR3, persecution, state protection and internal relocation were within the decision‑maker's province and not shown to be vitiated; any narrow approach to BOR2 would not have changed the result and granting leave would be futile.
10 Apr 2026
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety and the Board's adverse credibility findings were reasonable and within the range of permitted conclusions.
24 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal grounds or supply material facts and evidence in Form 86 and supporting affidavit, and the Board's decision involved no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
16 Feb 2026
The court refused leave because the applicants demonstrated no realistic prospect of success: the Board fairly applied anxious scrutiny, found the applicants' evidence credible, and validly concluded internal relocation in India would mitigate the claimed risks; no unconsidered child-specific issues were identified despite lack of legal representation, and any procedural non-compliance was a mere irregularity rather than fatal; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the joint application dismissed.
10 Feb 2026
The Board applied the correct legal tests, made credibility and factual findings which did not disclose any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable public law ground in Form 86; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
29 Dec 2025
Applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard and anxious scrutiny, the court found no reasonably arguable ground of review: the TCAB's findings on credibility, risk, state protection and internal relocation were within its evaluative province and supported by evidence; no procedural unfairness or legal error was shown; therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.