8 Mar 2021
The notice of motion for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) Cap.484 and the grounds advanced had no merit for the reasons given in the Court's earlier judgment; there was no basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb.
27 Jul 2018
Extension of time was refused because the applicant provided an inadequate explanation for a significant delay, the substantive claim was weak and not reasonably arguable, and the Director's and adjudicator's decisions were lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
31 Aug 2016
The judge refused leave because the applicant's case was not reasonably arguable: the Director and Adjudicator properly considered extended state acquiescence and country information, reasonably found the applicant not credible, concluded the injuries and threats did not meet the legal threshold of torture or BOR 3, and correctly held that state protection and internal relocation were viable; there was no realistic prospect of success and no procedural unfairness requiring relief.