Leave to appeal asylum judgment raised no points of law of exceptional public importance

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – application for leave to appeal – High Court refused leave to judicially review - criteria for the grant of leave to appeal – Court added four criteria - application for leave to appeal should be made promptly - question of law should be one which is actually determinative of the proceedings - grant of leave should provide some added value to any matters already before the Court of Appeal - question must be formulated with precision in a manner that indicates how it is determinative of the proceedings – point of law of exceptional public importance - can a first-instance international protection decision-maker in applying a statutorily defined [test] apply a specific pre-ordained deliberately applied modus operandi to decline to make findings concerning certain elements of the test when two of seven relevant statutory criteria are not satisfied - not a point in which any real doubt arises - the fact that the Court of Appeal is already seized of an issue dilutes the public interest in the point being certified a second time – whether a first-instance international protection decision-maker obliged to apply the correct standard of proof to its decision notwithstanding that there is an appeals (sic) from that decision to another body - answer to this question is “yes” – judicial review or appeal - doctrine of alternative remedies should not be pushed too far - question as to whether the commissioner applied the correct or incorrect standard of proof thus in any event does not arise from the judgment - not points of exceptional public importance such that it is in the public interest that there be an appeal to the Court of Appeal - fall to be considered under a now-repealed statutory scheme – leave to appeal refused.