6 May 2026
Leave refused because the applicant failed to identify an arguable ground; the Board lawfully and fairly assessed evidence and country information and its decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there were no realistic prospects of success.
29 Apr 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify specific errors in the Leave Decision; his allegations were general, unsupported and did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality warranting judicial intervention; the Court will not substitute its view for the Board's factual assessments.
27 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success or any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision that the claim was unsubstantiated and that state protection was available.
15 Apr 2026
The court refused extension of time and dismissed leave because the application was filed over a year late, the applicant failed to show a realistic prospect of success on the merits given the Board's findings that state protection and internal relocation were available and that the applicant's procedural complaints were unsupported; therefore no basis to grant relief.
25 Mar 2026
Leave dismissed because the application was filed out of time without a satisfactory explanation and, on the merits, the intended judicial review lacked reasonable arguability: the Board's decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and met the enhanced Wednesbury standard.
17 Mar 2026
The application for leave was filed outside the statutory three-month period and the applicant failed to demonstrate realistic prospects of success or any material legal or procedural error in the Board's Decision; accordingly there was no good reason to extend time and the application for leave was dismissed.
3 Mar 2026
Applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on grounds of error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the Board lawfully found the matter to be a private family dispute with no state involvement, available state protection, and no evidence of persecution or significant risk of torture or death, and there is no absolute right to free legal representation before the Board; accordingly leave to apply for judicial review is refused.
15 Jan 2026
The Director and the Board made lawful, rational and procedurally fair findings that the risk was localized and low, that state protection and reasonable internal relocation in India were available, and no arguable legal error was identified; therefore there was no prospect of success on judicial review and leave was refused.
18 Nov 2025
The leave application was refused because the Applicant failed to show any arguable public law error; the Adjudicator’s adverse credibility findings and conclusions that there was no real risk of torture, CIDTP or other harm were supported by the evidence, and thus the proposed judicial review was not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.
14 Nov 2025
Applicant was more than four months out of time with no explanation; there was no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Director's and Board's findings because no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness was identified and the asserted risks lacked evidence and were either private disputes or amenable to internal relocation; therefore no good reason to extend time and no prospect of success, so extension refused and leave dismissed.