RE BEGUM FATEMA

HCAL 2964/2018

[2022] HKCFI 390

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2964 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  The applicant is from Bangladesh. She came to Hong Kong on 17/11/2015 under a domestic helper contract. Her contract was terminated on 20/4/2016. She overstayed until 13/7/2016 before she surrendered to the Immigration Department. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 2/11/2016.

2.  The basis of her claim was that she might be harmed or killed by the money lender if she returned to Bangladesh. Her father borrowed BDT[1] 350,000 from a money lender in October 2014. Her father could not repay. The money lender threatened to take her as his wife instead. The money lender assaulted her father as he failed to repay after the deadline on 2/2/2015. The money lender even tried to molest her. She managed to escape to a friend and later went to Dhaka for training as a domestic helper. She left Bangladesh for Hong Kong in November 2015.

3.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 7/3/2017. The appeal to TCAB was dismissed on 26/11/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that the applicant was not truthful. There was no real risk of harm. Her father was the principal debtor. It would not be in the money lender’s interest to kill the applicant. There was no reason to target her. Her parents were safe after all these years. The money lender had not directed any pressure on her parents or her sister to get the money back. The applicant did not work for long in Hong Kong. She got married in 2018 and forgot about the repayment.

5.  On 24/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.

6.  This court agreed with the analysis of the adjudicator. There was no error of law and procedures. The TCAB decision was reasonable. This court refused leave on 4/10/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 12/11/2021 for extension of time to appeal. She was out of time for about 4 weeks.

8.  In her affirmation, she asserted that she had moved to a new address. She had not updated her address with this court.

9.  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]

10.  The delay is substantial. The applicant failed to inform this court her change of address. She must bear the consequence of any problem in the mail. Apart from this, the merits of the intended judicial review is an important factor to be considered.

11.  As set out in paragraphs 4—6 above, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.