13 Nov 2024
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success or identify any legal error by the judge or vitiating feature in the Board’s findings; the grounds were bare assertions without particulars and did not demonstrate that the judge was wrong in law or fact.
27 May 2022
The judge correctly refused leave because the applicant did not advance any reasonably arguable ground of error of law or procedural unfairness against the Board's findings, which were supported by evidence and reasoning; therefore there was no realistic prospect of success and the appeal is dismissed.
27 May 2022
Applicant failed to advance any reasonably arguable or particularised ground showing the judge was wrong to refuse leave; the Board's findings on credibility, risk and state protection were unchallenged and lawful; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
16 May 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to lodge a skeleton argument and did not identify any viable ground to reverse the Deputy Judge's refusal of leave; the Board's and Director's assessments of evidence, COI, state protection and internal relocation were within their province and did not disclose errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
12 Nov 2020
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedure or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision or in the judge's refusal of leave; non-compliance with the requirement to lodge a skeleton argument justified vacating the oral hearing and deciding the appeal on paper, and the intended judicial review had no prospect of success.
12 Nov 2020
The applicant abandoned an oral hearing by failing to lodge a skeleton argument despite warning; moreover, he failed to point to any reasonably arguable error of law or procedure in the Board's decision and the Board reasonably found the risk was localised with internal relocation available, so there was no prospect of success and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
12 Apr 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), the new arguments raised late were plainly not reasonably arguable, and there was no basis on the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave; procedural non-compliance (failure to lodge skeleton) further justified refusal.
4 Apr 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with procedural requirements for the appeal, and more importantly he did not demonstrate any error of law or procedure in the Judge's refusal of leave; the proposed grounds were general, lacked particulars and had no realistic prospect of success, so there was no basis for interfering with the Judge's decision.
28 Jan 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable ground of unlawfulness, unreasonableness or unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board's factual findings on credibility and country information were open to it and there was no realistic prospect that additional documents would change the outcome.
12 Dec 2018
The appeal is dismissed because the second leave application was an abuse of the court process as the matter had been properly disposed of by Deputy Judge Woodcock (res judicata) and was brought out of time with no explanation; additionally the applicant's failure to comply with Practice Direction 4.1 to lodge a skeleton argument justified vacating the oral hearing and considering the appeal on the papers, and the judge's reasons were adequate.