20 May 2026
Leave was granted because the applicant raised a reasonably arguable challenge that the Board's conclusion on internal relocation to Lagos and its assessment of risk of arbitrary deprivation of life may be unreasonable or irrational, thereby satisfying the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review.
18 May 2026
Leave was refused and no extension of time granted because the applicant failed to identify grounds or to make full disclosure in Form 86, failed to demonstrate any public law error in the Board's decision (whose factual findings are not displaced absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality), and provided no explanation for the nearly two‑month delay beyond the three‑month limit.
18 May 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant's Form 86 lacked clear grounds and particulars, the supporting affirmation was vague, the Board's findings of fact showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge was not reasonably arguable; the applicant's handwritten letter was treated as a withdrawal and the matter was decided on the papers.
18 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law grounds in Form 86 and did not make the required full and frank disclosure, and because the Board's adverse factual findings were not shown to be tainted by error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such that there was no realistic prospect of success on judicial review.
15 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility and risk findings were factual, lawfully reached and not vitiated by procedural unfairness, irrationality or error of law, so the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
15 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant disavowed the grounds relied on in her Form 86, the Board's determination was grounded in factual findings which did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the intended challenge lacked realistic prospects of success.
15 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated, that evidence was inconsistent, and that risk was localized with viable internal relocation were lawful and not irrational; no arguable ground of public law error or procedural unfairness was shown.
15 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any reasonably arguable grounds in the Form 86, the Board's decision exhibited no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and its factual findings that past injuries were minor, no real risk existed and internal relocation was viable precluded judicial intervention.
15 May 2026
The leave application is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any properly pleaded grounds in Form 86, did not show any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s decision, and the proposed challenge lacked realistic prospects of success given the Board’s lawful and fair application of the law and its factual findings regarding severity and internal relocation.
14 May 2026
Leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s and Board’s decisions; the Board’s credibility findings and assessment that risk was low and internal relocation was reasonable were supported by the evidence, and the applicant confirmed she no longer opposed return to Indonesia, demonstrating no prospect of success.