27 Jan 2025
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify reasonably arguable grounds with sufficient particularity to show error of law by the Judge; the record shows legal and language assistance was provided and the Board’s credibility findings and procedural conduct did not disclose reviewable error.
11 Jun 2024
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Judge's refusal of leave; the Board had considered COI and reasonably concluded internal relocation eliminated the real risk; lack of legal representation or limited English did not establish procedural unfairness and no oral hearing was requested so the Judge properly determined the application on the papers, meaning there was no realistic prospect of success.
5 Jul 2023
The judge correctly refused extension of time and leave because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse credibility and factual findings were lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury-unreasonable; the new complaint about lack of legal or language assistance was not raised below, was unsupported by particulars, and in any event did not establish entitlement to relief.
30 Dec 2022
The Notice of Motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484, and the complaints about lack of legal and language assistance did not render the proposed appeal reasonably arguable or meet the "otherwise" limb of s22(1)(b).
9 Sept 2022
The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for an over five‑month delay and failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) Cap 484 or any other reasonably arguable basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
19 May 2022
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Board's Decision, and there was no realistic prospect of success; the Director's Decision was not independently reviewable once the Board's Decision was pursued.
19 Jul 2021
Applying Order 2 Rule 5, the court found the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance, failed to show any real prejudice from lack of legal or language assistance, and the intended appeal lacked merit; therefore the court refused relief from sanction and dismissed the summons dated 4 November 2020 with no order as to costs and prohibited reconsideration at an oral inter partes hearing.
10 May 2021
The Court affirmed the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board lawfully accepted the factual complaints but reasonably concluded there was no real risk of serious harm, internal relocation and state protection were viable, an interpreter had been provided at the Board hearing, and therefore there was no prospect of success in a judicial review.
20 Nov 2020
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused because the applicant failed to raise any reasonably arguable ground or a question of general or public importance, failed to comply with the unless order thereby abandoning the right to oral hearing, and the BOR 2 issues were considered on the record.
18 Dec 2019
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) Cap 484; the grounds advanced were vague, lacked particulars and were not reasonably arguable; and there was no basis to grant leave on the 'otherwise' limb or to entertain new fact-sensitive points not previously argued.