NADEEM ASLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

NADEEM ASLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground or material public law error: the Board lawfully and fairly applied the legal tests to the evidence and made factual findings (including no BOR2 risk) which a court will not disturb on judicial review absent...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1276
Parties
Applicant: Nadeem Aslam; 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
13 March 2026
Case Number
HCAL901/2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (ord 53) / Decision on Leave Application Dismissal
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic), HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) and Article 3 (prohibition of Torture), Unified Screening Mechanism (usm), Judicial Review Leave Stage, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture Risk (immigration Ordinance Part Viic) HKBOR Article 2 (right to Life) and Article 3 (prohibition of Torture) Unified Screening Mechanism (usm) +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadeem Aslam

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (ord 53) / Decision on Leave Application Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law or acted procedurally unfairly or irrationally in rejecting BOR2/BOR3/torture and persecution claims
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a reasonably arguable case with realistic prospects of success to obtain leave
  3. 3 Whether new evidence or additional time/legal aid would render the claim arguable at the leave stage

Ratio Decidendi

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable ground or material public law error: the Board lawfully and fairly applied the legal tests to the evidence and made factual findings (including no BOR2 risk) which a court will not disturb on judicial review absent error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; consequently there were no realistic prospects of success to justify granting leave.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Form 86 to be amended on the court's own motion
  • The applicant's application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed