3 Nov 2021
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal because the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and did not raise any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) of Cap 484, and there was no other reason to grant leave.
1 Feb 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused and the appeal dismissed because the applicants' complaints were not reasonably arguable: lack of legal representation and lack of translated documents did not establish real prejudice; the Board's and Director's findings on proscribed risks, state protection and internal relocation were supported by evidence and not Wednesbury-unreasonable; and the applicants' procedural non-compliance (failure to lodge skeletons) justified determining the appeal on paper.
19 Dec 2018
The court refused to extend time and refused leave because the applicant was significantly delayed (over five months), offered no good and sufficient reason (ignorance of law not acceptable), the grounds were misconceived and not previously argued, and the statutory criteria in s22(1)(b) Cap 484 for leave were not met.
26 Oct 2018
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify questions that arose from the Court of Appeal judgment or the grounds of appeal and did not demonstrate that any question met the statutory threshold of great general or public importance under s.22(1)(b) Cap.484; procedural non-compliance reinforced refusal of leave.
10 Jul 2018
The application for extension of time and for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay caused by ignorance of the 28‑day limit did not constitute very good grounds under s24(5) Cap 484, and because the issues advanced (lack of legal representation and BOR2 as a separate basis) did not raise reasonably arguable questions of great, general or public importance and were fact‑sensitive; accordingly leave was refused and the application dismissed.
20 Mar 2018
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant had legal assistance for the primary materials, presented no new material on BOR 2 risk, the Board considered BOR 2 and BOR 3 together and found no real risk, and therefore there was no procedural unfairness or question of general or public importance warranting leave under s.22(1)(b).