11 May 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to reverse the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; the submissions were general allegations without particulars and did not demonstrate error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's decision.
18 Apr 2023
The application was dismissed because the applicant was 15 months out of time without a satisfactory explanation and the intended challenge had no realistic prospect: under s37ZO she failed to show any significant change of circumstances or that combined material would give a subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success, and the Director's decision to refuse a subsequent claim was reasonable given prior findings of available state protection and internal relocation; accordingly time was not extended and leave was refused.
2 Apr 2019
The Court dismissed the appeal because the judge applied the correct legal standards, properly reviewed the TCAB's decision under enhanced scrutiny, and there was no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: the TCAB's adverse credibility findings were supported by the record, making COI and state acquiescence irrelevant, and thus leave to commence judicial review was correctly refused.
4 Dec 2018
Extension of time to appeal was refused because the applicant was delayed by one month with no explanation, failed to file supporting submissions, and the intended appeal was without prospect of success since the Judge's reasons were detailed, there was no error of law or procedural unfairness and the enhanced Wednesbury standard was satisfied; therefore the summons for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.
31 Oct 2018
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed refusal of leave because the applicant’s grounds were unparticularised and not reasonably arguable, the Board’s adverse credibility finding was rational and supported by reasons, there was no demonstrable error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
19 Jun 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the adjudicator conducted a meticulous rehearing, rejected the applicant's evidence as not credible, made no error of law or procedural unfairness, and the decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable; the applicant's grounds were not particularised or reasonably arguable and there was no realistic prospect of success.
17 May 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because there was no realistic prospect of success: the Director and the Board reasonably considered and applied COI, conducted sufficient inquiry and fairness, correctly found no state acquiescence or inadequate state protection, properly assessed credibility (including that medical reports were not probative), and their decisions were not Wednesbury unreasonable.
13 Feb 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant's grounds were unsubstantiated and not reasonably arguable; the Director and the Appeal Board lawfully and properly considered the COI and evidence, found state protection available, and their conclusions were not Wednesbury unreasonable or affected by procedural unfairness; pending legal aid proceedings did not create a lawful basis to delay or stay the leave decision.