RE DINH THI QUYEN

HCAL 2879/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2879 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is from Vietnam. She sneaked into Hong Kong from Shenzhen by boat on 30/8/2015. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 31/8/2015. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on the same day.

2.  The basis of her claim was that she might be harmed or killed by the loan shark (“Tuan”). She and her husband had borrowed VND 200 million from Tuan on 3 occasions in 2012-2014. She was unable to repay the debt. Tuan and his group came to her home demanding repayment. She managed to escape from home. She was in such fear that she decided to leave Vietnam on 23/8/2015 for China.

3.  Her non-refoulement claim was rejected on 28/3/2017 by the Director. The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 13/12/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that the basis of raising 3 loans was unconvincing given their low income and inexperience in the shrimp culture business. There was no evidence of torture or ill-treatment by Tuan. She had never met Tuan as she managed to escape on both occasions when Tuan came to her home. The debt was a private matter. There was no involvement of any public official. There were reasonable options for internal relocation. The adjudicator concluded that her claim failed on all grounds.[1]

5.  On 17/12/2018, the applicant applied leave for judicial review.  In her affirmation, she repeated the basis of her claim. She pleaded for more time to stay in Hong Kong so that her family could raise funds for repayment.

6.  Deputy Judge Lung considered her leave application on paper. The Judge found no error of law or procedure. There was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. The Judge refused leave on 6/8/2020.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 14/10/2020 for extension of time to appeal against the decision. She was out of time for about 7 weeks.

8.  In her affirmation, the applicant indicated that she believed there was a good ground of appeal which had not been considered by Deputy Judge Lung.

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.  There is a substantial delay of about 7 weeks. Her explanation is unconvincing. The applicant asserted that there was a good ground for judicial review but with no detail. This court would not act on this empty assertion.

11.  As set out in paragraph 4 above, the adjudicator found that the evidence could not support her claim. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. I also agree with the decision of Deputy Judge Lung. 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.