20 May 2026
The application to withdraw was refused and the Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant confirmed his issues in his home country had been resolved making return safe; the claim was therefore otiose and granting leave would serve no practical purpose even if legal errors existed.
13 May 2026
The court refused the applicant's application to withdraw the leave application and dismissed the leave application on the ground that the applicant had confirmed she was safe to return to Indonesia, removing the factual basis of her non-refoulement claim; because any grant of leave (or remedial relief) would be otiose, leave was properly refused despite any arguable errors in the Board's decision. The court also corrected the parties and decision date on its own motion as purely procedural amendments.
5 Mar 2026
The withdrawal letter and the record showed the applicant acted freely and with an informed understanding of the consequences; accordingly the court allowed the withdrawal and treated the Board's decision as final and binding on the applicant.
6 Feb 2026
The Leave Application was dismissed because the applicant validly and voluntarily withdrew the application and there was nothing outstanding; the court also corrected the Form to name the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.
14 Jan 2026
The court refused to allow withdrawal and dismissed the leave application because the applicant failed to identify a reasonably arguable claim with realistic prospects of success and the Board's decision was free from errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; materials not placed before the Board could not be relied upon to found judicial review.
9 Dec 2025
The court refused the applicant's request to withdraw the leave application and dismissed the leave application on the ground that the applicant had confirmed it was safe to return to her country, rendering the non-refoulement claim otiose; therefore proceeding or granting leave would serve no practical purpose even if legal errors existed.
9 Dec 2025
The applicant's confirmed voluntary withdrawal and clear statement that it is safe to return to Indonesia rendered the non-refoulement claim moot; therefore granting leave or remitting the case would serve no practical purpose and the Leave Application is to be dismissed while the application to withdraw is refused insofar as leaving the action at large would result.
9 Dec 2025
The leave application was dismissed and the application to withdraw refused because the applicant confirmed it was safe to return to his country, removing the live basis for a non-refoulement claim and rendering any judicial review remedy otiose; the court also corrected the party designation by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board as putative respondent and adding the Director of Immigration as putative interested party.
25 Nov 2025
The application to withdraw was refused and the leave application was dismissed because the applicant's non-refoulement claim had been resolved making the intended judicial review otiose; even if legal errors existed, granting leave and remitting would serve no practical purpose and the court must not leave the action at large when withdrawal is sought.
25 Nov 2025
The court refused the applicant's withdrawal application, examined the Board's Decision on the merits, found no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's application of the law (including HJ principles and internal relocation assessment), and dismissed the application for leave to apply for judicial review because the claim was not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success.