RE ANU GURUNG

HCAL 2276/2018

[2022] HKCFI 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2276 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The applicant is from India. She came to Hong Kong on 12/11/2013 as a domestic helper. Her contract was terminated on 28/2/2017. She was arrested for overstaying on 3/3/2017.[1] She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 29/12/2017.

2.  Around 2012, she was the keeper of a “revolving fund” group. There were 16 members each contributing 300,000 Nepalese Rupees to the fund each month. One of them would get the fund by drawing lots. Subsequently, a member ran away with the fund. Others blamed her. She was once kidnapped to a jungle under knife point but she could not recall what had happened to her. She suspected the kidnappers were sent by others in the group. In the following one and half years, she hid at various friends’ places in India and Nepal. In November 2013, she came to work in Hong Kong. She was in fear that the group would still pursue the dispute.

3.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 10/5/2018.  Her appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 12/9/2018.

4.  The adjudicator pointed out that the applicant was not credible. She was blamed for the conduct of another member. It was illogical. There was no evidence that others had threatened her. Her assertion about the kidnap to the jungle was incredible. There was no torture, CIDTP, risk to life or persecution. There was reasonable State protection and relocation options.  

5.  On 19/10/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. During the hearing on 19/1/2021, she confirmed that the kidnap was not directly relevant. She would try her best to submit documents when the pandemic was under control in India. A friend told her that the others from the group still looked for her.

6.  This court noted that the applicant had not made specific complaint of any error in the decision of the TCAB.  She already had ample time since 2013 to locate any relevant documents before the pandemic. I refused to allow more time. Given the evidence of the applicant, the adjudicator was right that the factual basis of her claim was not credible. I refused leave on 30/3/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 8/11/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  She was out of time for nearly 7 months.

8.  In her affirmation for extension of time, the applicant indicated that she did not receive the decision of this court. She was informed by an Immigration Officer about the result on 5/11/2021.

9.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to the address supplied by the Immigration Department as of 30/10/2020. It transpired that she had moved to a new address according to her summons dated 8/11/2021. She had not updated this address with this court. If that is the reason for failure to receive the decision, she must bear the consequences.

10.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[2]

11.  The delay is nearly 7 months. The circumstances under which she was informed of the decision were unclear. She had not explained the situation in detail. I have grave doubt about the reason for the delay.

12.  As set out in paragraph 4 above, I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.