Proposed grounds of appeal were tendentious and mischaracterised key aspects of the case

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal – High Court refused judicial review of refusals of subsidiary protection - law on applications for certificates for appeal – whether a decision maker should determine the probative value of medical reports - proposed questions of exceptional public importance – decision maker errs if they approach the evidence in a compartmentalised way and reaches a conclusion before considering all the relevant evidence in the round – alleged conflict in caselaw – whether an applicant meets his/her burden of establishing a lack of state where they can demonstrate that the change in regime has not resulted in any “effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm - applicants did not demonstrate that, insofar as they were concerned, there was a risk of serious harm after the régime change – question does not apply – misreading of European law - whether a decision-maker who has made adverse credibility findings arising from an Applicant’s failure to seek medical or psychological assistance following an allegation of rape, has acted unreasonably in the assessment of past harm, and serious risk of future harm - fact-specific issue and does not raise a question of law - the proposed grounds of appeal and submissions made in support of them are quite tendentious and mischaracterise a number of key aspects of the case – leave to appeal refused.