SAMIM MALICK alias DIPAK MULLICK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

SAMIM MALICK alias DIPAK MULLICK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was dismissed because the application was inordinate (approximately seven years late) without acceptable justification, the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated in the Director's or Board's decisions; additionally the applicant confirmed he no longer sought protection and wished to return to India.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 6349
Parties
Applicant: Samim Malick alias Dipak Mullick; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Case Number
HCAL338/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage – Decision on Extension of Time and Merits
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture and CIDTP, HKBOR Article 3, HKBOR Article 2, Credibility Findings, Delay and Extension of Time, Internal Relocation, Judicial Review Standard of Review, Procedural Impropriety, Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non‑refoulement Torture and CIDTP HKBOR Article 3 HKBOR Article 2 +6 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samim Malick alias Dipak Mullick

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Stage – Decision on Extension of Time and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave application was made promptly or time should be extended under Order 53 r4
  2. 2 Whether the Board and Director misapplied legal tests for BOR 3 (torture/CIDTP) and CAT Article 1
  3. 3 Whether state acquiescence rendered non‑state actor violence attributable to the State

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was dismissed because the application was inordinate (approximately seven years late) without acceptable justification, the proposed grounds were vague and not reasonably arguable, and no legal error or procedural unfairness was demonstrated in the Director's or Board's decisions; additionally the applicant confirmed he no longer sought protection and wished to return to India.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave dismissed
  • No extension of time granted