BUTT MUHAMMAD ASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

BUTT MUHAMMAD ASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review or to demonstrate procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the NRCPO decision after anxious scrutiny; the medical documents failed the Ladd v Marshall test and would not probably have affected the outcome.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4162
Parties
Applicant: Butt Muhammad Asim; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 September 2025
Case Number
HCAL1287/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed (notification of Judge's Decision)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Risk Assessment (torture, Persecution, Bor), Procedural Fairness, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall)
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Risk Assessment (torture, Persecution, Bor) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Butt Muhammad Asim

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Dismissed (notification of Judge's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the NRCPO decision involved error of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality under the enhanced Wednesbury standard
  3. 3 Whether the applicant adequately identified grounds of review and disclosed material facts

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds of judicial review or to demonstrate procedural unfairness, error of law or irrationality in the NRCPO decision after anxious scrutiny; the medical documents failed the Ladd v Marshall test and would not probably have affected the outcome.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
  • Notification of the decision sent to the Applicant on 30 September 2025.