RE LE THI NINH

HCAL 1120/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1120 OF 2018

_________________

_________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  The applicant is from Vietnam[1]. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 17/5/2016. She claimed that she had sneaked into Hong Kong on 15/5/2016. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 17/5/2016.

2.  The basis of her claim was that she might be harmed or killed by the creditor (“Ngoc”). She had borrowed VND 200 million from Ngoc in April 2014 to expand her business in selling fish. She was unable to repay the debt since April 2015. Ngoc threatened to kill her if she did not repay. She left Vietnam for China. She sneaked into Hong Kong on 15/5/2016.

3.  Her non-refoulement claim was rejected on 10/3/2017 by the Director. The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 18/5/2018.

4.  The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was able to remain at home and continued with her job for a year despite the threat from Ngoc. She was never harmed. Her assertion that Ngoc had hired triad members to kill her was unconvincing. The adjudicator found that she might be able to repay by selling her house. The risk of harm was low. She could have assistance from the police. There were reasonable options for internal relocation. The adjudicator concluded that her claim failed on all grounds.[2]

5.  On 19/6/2018, the applicant filed a leave application for judicial review. In her affirmation, she repeated her fear. She raised a new point that she could be imprisoned for “Fraudulence” if sued by Ngoc.

6.  Deputy Judge CP Pang found that the TCAB rejected her claim after analysis of the primary facts. The TCAB found that there was reasonable State protection and internal relocation options. The Judge pointed out that there was no ill-treatment to a minimum level of severity. There was no error of law and procedures. The decisions of the TCAB was rational. There was no prospect of success in the intended judicial review. The Judge also refused leave for the intended judicial review on 28/1/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 5/3/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Pang. She was out of time for about 3 weeks.

8.  In her affirmation, the applicant asserted that there was a good ground of appeal that was not considered during the leave application. She believed that there was merit in this ground which justified extension of time.

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.[3]

10.  There was a substantial delay of about 3 weeks. She submitted no explanation for the delay. She only mentioned that there was a ground of appeal which justified extension of time. However, there was no detail about this ground. I would not accept it to extend time for appeal.

11.  As set out in paragraph 4 above, the adjudicator found that the risk of harm was low. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. I also agree with the decision of Deputy Judge Pang. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

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