RE TALUKDER SOMA

HCAL 1656/2019

[2022] HKCFI 823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1656 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The applicant is from Bangladesh. She came to Hong Kong on 19/3/2015 under a domestic helper contract. Her contract was terminated on 23/4/2015. She overstayed until 4/12/2015 before she was arrested by the police. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 6/12/2015.

2.  In June 2013, her father was forced to join the Awami League (“AL”). Those people would take her away if her father refused. Her father thought she should leave Bangladesh for her safety. In October 2013, she had 3-month-training as a domestic helper in Tangail. She stayed in the training center before coming to Hong Kong. She had not encountered the AL people. During that period, the AL members threatened her father again. They demanded that she be sent to their office to join AL. She did not apply for protection earlier as she only came to Hong Kong for work. She had returned to Bangladesh in January 2015 until March 2015 for medical treatment. She stayed away from home with her aunt. The AL people still looked for her. Her father was safe. She feared that they would harm or kill her.

3.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 9/8/2018.  The appeal to TCAB was dismissed on 13/6/2019.

4.  The adjudicator found that the applicant was not credible. She told the adjudicator that she had threats from the AL people in 2007 whereas in her NCF it was 2013. In any event, those threats in 2007 had never been carried out. Her family was safe in the home village all along. She admitted it was falsely stated in her NCF that her family had to live in different places. There was no ill-treatment because of Convention reasons. There was no ill-treatment or injury which reached a minimum level of severity or within the definition under s.37U of the Immigration Ordinance. There was no involvement of any official.  

5.  On 17/6/2019, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.  This court found there was no language problem as the Director’s decision, the record of interview and the NCF were interpreted to her. She could answer questions during the TCAB hearing. The news reports were only used to corroborate the COI. They were from reliable news agencies.

6.  The applicant was absent from the hearing fixed on 25/10/2021. The notice of hearing was sent to her last updated address. There was no return of mail.

7.  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 5/1/2022.

8.  The applicant filed a summons on 10/2/2022 for extension of time to appeal.  She was out of time for nearly 3 weeks. In her affirmation, she asserted that she had not received the decision of 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.[1]

10.  The delay is substantial. The applicant failed to inform this court her new address recorded in the summons for extension of time. She must bear the consequence of any problem in the mail. Apart from this, the merits of the intended judicial review are important factors to be considered.

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