His application was rejected.

Their application was rejected.

The Court rejected the application.

The lower court rejected the application.

This new application was rejected on 15 October 2002.

Her application for full exemption from the CKREE subject was rejected.

2.8 On 26 May 1997 the Constitutional Court rejected the application.

Lastly, her application to the Constitutional Court for amparo was also rejected.

2.3 On 26 May 1997 Madrid Social Court No. 3 rejected his application.

The author filed an application for review of that decision, an application that was rejected by the court on 7 July 1998.

The author subsequently filed a new application for reconsideration and it too was rejected.

On 19 November 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the author's application and on 24 December 1999, rejected his appeal from the Court of Appeal.

On 25 November 1996, the court rejected an application for review filed by the author.

The Commission found the application manifestly groundless in a decision dated 10 October 2002. It rejected the application in a ruling dated 13 November 2002.

The application was rejected by the Federal Office for Refugees by decision dated 10 January 2002.

2.3 In a judgement dated 27 January 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the application for annulment.

2.8 On 7 May 2001, the Minister of Justice rejected the author's application for a retrial.

For want of details, and in the absence of any justification for his allegations, his application was rejected.

2.3 The author lodged an amparo application before the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 29 January 1997.

The arbitral tribunal provided for in the statutes of association rejected the claimant's application to have the reorganisation overturned.

Therefore, they applied for full exemption for Kevin from CKREE subject in the autumn 1997 the application was rejected.

His asylum application was rejected by the Swedish Migration Board on 21 February 2001 and his appeal of that decision was rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board on 3 June 2002.

4.5 On 21 February 2001, the Migration Board rejected the application for asylum and ordered the complainant's expulsion to Bangladesh.

4.4 On 19 July 2001, the Migration Board rejected the complainant's application for asylum and ordered that he be deported to Ecuador.

On 12 November 2002, the Danish Board of Appeal rejected the author's application for leave to appeal against the High Court's judgement.

When his complaint was rejected at the lower court and appeal levels, the author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court.

Lastly, the authors filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected in October 1998 as being devoid of substance.

On 13 December 2002, the case was heard by the high court of the Guadalajara de Buga judicial district, which rejected the complainant's application.

Justice Wilcox rejected the applicant's argument that the consideration of an application for registration was a service as contemplated by section 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec rejected the appeal against the conviction and the Supreme Court of Canada refused the application for leave to appeal against this decision.

2.16 On 17 March 2004, the Board of Appeal rejected Mr. Warming's application for leave to appeal the Grindsted District Court's decision to the High Court of Western Denmark.

2.5 On 22 August 2000, the second application for a protection visa was rejected as the complainant had not established a real fear of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka.

Her application to the Supreme Court for a judicial review was rejected because she could have submitted the new document on which she based her case at an earlier stage.

The author filed an application for amparo with the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on 25 October 1999 on the grounds that the court of first instance had already resolved the matter.

2.3 On 15 February 1994, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to alter the verdict and on 11 August 1994 the Canadian Supreme Court rejected the author's application for leave to appeal.

The State party argues that the dangers alleged by the complainant had already been reviewed thoroughly and fairly under domestic procedures counsel acknowledges that OFPRA rejected the complainant's application for refugee status on what grounds counsel does not know, since the application was refused while the complainant was in prison.

This amendment should stipulate that if any new facts or circumstances suggestive of serious trauma are advanced after an asylum application has been rejected, the initial decision will in principle be open to reconsideration.

On 30 October 2000, RRT cancelled the decision to refuse the second application for a protection visa, on the ground that the second application was invalid and that RRT thus had no jurisdiction. On 8 November 2000, a fourth request under section 417 was made, which was rejected on 11 December 2001.

(b) The accelerated procedure under the Aliens Act allows an extremely limited time for applicants for asylum to have their cases considered thoroughly and to exhaust all lines of appeal if their application is rejected

Men will call them rejected silver, because Yahweh has rejected them.

Men will call them rejected silver, because Yahweh has rejected them.

(c) Despite the safeguards in place, the Parliamentary Ombudsman reported on one recent case of an asylum seeker whose application had been rejected and who was subsequently allegedly subjected to torture in his country of origin

His application was rejected, and he maintains that sending him back to Pakistan would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Following interviews, the delegate of the Department of Immigration rejected the claim on 19 November 1997, regarding the complainant as not credible on account of a variety of inconsistencies between his application and his interview testimony.

Any application which on review by the China Adoption Centre, is found not to comply with the stipulations and requirements of law or to be detrimental to the sound growth of an adopted child, is rejected.