RE BAUTISTA JUDY VILLACORTA

HCAL 3020/2018

[2022] HKCFI 460

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3020 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is from the Philippines. She worked in Hong Kong as a domestic helper since 16/7/2012. Her contract was terminated early on 10/7/2015. She was arrested for overstaying on 13/11/2015. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 2/1/2016.

2.  The applicant cohabited with her boyfriend since 2004. He had been violent to her throughout the years. She gave birth to a son in 2005. She arranged to work in Hong Kong in 2012. Her boyfriend introduced her to borrow a loan of 82,000 pesos from Mrs. Guzman. It was meant to support her boyfriend and her son while she worked in Hong Kong. She remitted money back for repayment of the loan but her boyfriend did not do so. Mrs. Guzman threatened to kill her if she failed to repay. She lost contact with her boyfriend since 2015. She learned from her friends that her boyfriend had a relationship with another woman.

3.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 15/8/2016 and 17/8/2017[1]. His appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 13/12/2018.

4.  The adjudicator pointed out that the evidence did not support a real risk of harm. The applicant told the adjudicator that she signed a loan agreement but in her NCF she said there was neither written agreement nor collateral security. It was unreasonable for her to borrow such a huge sum as she could never repay. There was no evidence that Mrs. Guzman had taken any action to kill her or her boyfriend. There was no public official involved. There was no torture, CIDTP, risk to her life or persecution.

5.  On 31/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. She did not specify the error in the TCAB decision. She maintained that her life was in danger.

6.  The adjudicator was justified to reject her evidence given the inconsistencies. I agree with the findings of the adjudicator. The factual basis of her claim did not support non-refoulement protection. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the TCAB was reasonable. Leave was refused on 28/9/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 25/10/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  She was out of time for about 2 weeks. In her affidavit, she asserted that she missed the deadline for appeal as she had no knowledge of the deadline. She had insufficient money.[2]

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.[3]

9.  The delay is substantial. Lack of knowledge of the deadline here is not a valid reason. She should be conscientious in handling her claim. Insufficient money is not a strong reason.

10.  As mentioned above, I agree with the decision of the TCAB. There is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.