RE VIRENDER KUMAR

HCAL 2966/2018

[2022] HKCFI 819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2966 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The applicant is from India. He came to Hong Kong on 16/6/2014. He was arrested for overstaying on 3/7/2014. He filed a non-refoulement claim on 5/7/2014.

2.  Around March 2013, he set up a poultry farm with three partners. He borrowed 500,000 rupees at a monthly interest rate of 2% from a creditor who was a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”). He could not repay. The creditor came to his home and threatened to kill him. His family was not attacked. He took refuge in New Delhi until he left India in June 2014. His family also moved to live with his in-laws. His wife told him that the creditor still came around to look for him.

3.  On 23/3/2018, the Director dismissed his claim. On 19/11/2018, the TCAB rejected his appeal.

4.  The TCAB found that there was only verbal threat. There was no injury which amounted to a minimum level of severity.  The creditor could not locate him in New Delhi. He was safe there. There was no public official involved. There was no severe pain and suffering. New Delhi and Mumbai were reasonable options for relocation.

5.  On 24/12/2018, the applicant filed the leave application for judicial review of the TCAB decision dated 19/11/2018. He stressed that he was in danger in his home country.

6.  I agreed with the analysis of the adjudicator. The applicant did not suffer any injury at all. There was no evidence to support any non-refoulement protection. There was no error of law or procedure. The TCAB decision was reasonable. I refused leave on 13/1/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 8/2/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time by nearly 2 weeks. In his affirmation, the applicant asserted that he disagreed with the decision of this court. 

8.  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]

9.  The applicant has not explained the delay. I have also considered the prospect of the intended judicial review which is important at this stage.

10.  As set out in paragraphs 4 above, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not have real risk of harm. There was no injury at all. His family was not attacked. I agree with the decision of the TCAB.  There is no merit in the intended judicial review.

11.  Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.