21 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's Decision, and the court could not detect any reasonable basis to quash the decision.
21 May 2026
The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's reasoned decision; the Board's adverse factual findings on credibility and low risk, and its conclusions on state protection and internal relocation were not irrational or unfair and did not justify judicial intervention.
21 May 2026
No arguable public law error was identified on the face of the material; the Board's credibility and factual findings were not irrational or procedurally unfair and sufficient state protection/internal relocation existed; accordingly there was no basis for judicial review and the application for leave was dismissed.
20 May 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision; the Board had applied the correct legal tests, considered evidence and Country of Origin information and provided adequate reasons, so there was no reasonably arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.
20 May 2026
Extension of time refused and leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the Applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the approximately one‑month delay and the proposed grounds were no more than bare assertions; the Board's decision had been made after proper consideration of evidence and COI, applied the correct legal tests, and did not disclose error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so there was no reasonably arguable prospect of success.
20 May 2026
Leave was refused and the voluntary withdrawal permitted because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, which was comprehensive, applied the correct legal tests and provided adequate reasons; hence no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.
20 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: the Board's adverse factual findings were supported by absence of evidence and were not vitiated by error of law or procedural unfairness, and the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for delay.
20 May 2026
The applicant's request to withdraw was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the Board's Decision, after anxious scrutiny, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant was found not credible, her case lacked realistic prospects of success, and therefore leave to apply for judicial review was not justified.
20 May 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success; the Board's findings on risk and the viability of internal relocation were within its fact-finding remit and did not exhibit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.
20 May 2026
Leave was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and failed to show she exercised all due diligence or that the delay was due to circumstances beyond her control as required by the Immigration Ordinance; the Board correctly applied statutory presumptions and its reasoning was adequate, so there was no realistic prospect of success for judicial review.