RE EISMA PERLY CORBILLON

HCAL 2088/2018

[2022] HKCFI 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2088 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  The applicant is from the Philippines.[1] She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper in 1999. Her last employment contract was terminated on 15/6/2006. She surrendered to the Immigration Department on 28/4/2011 for overstaying. She filed a torture claim on 10/8/2011 which was withdrawn on 4/11/2011. She stopped reporting to the Director from 2012 to 2016. She was afraid that she would be detained. She filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 29/8/2016.

2.   The applicant got married in 1990. Her husband had alcohol and drug problems. He always assaulted her and sexually abused her. He also ill-treated her children. She did not report to the police. In 2006, he threatened to kill her on the phone when he knew that she was terminated. She last talk to him in 2011.

3.  Her claim was rejected by the Director on 17/2/2017. Her appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 14/9/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that there was no real risk of harm. The adjudicator accepted that her husband might have assaulted her. However, she could relocate to Pangasinan where her siblings were. Her husband would not be able to locate her. All her children were adults. There was no reason for her to return to Manila where her husband resided.

5.  On 2/10/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review. In her affidavit, she did not specify any error in the TCAB decision.

6.  The evidence fully supported the conclusion of the adjudicator. There was no real risk of harm. This court agreed with the findings of the adjudicator. There were reasonable relocation options. The applicant had delayed for almost 5 years before filing a claim. This court ruled that there was no error of law and procedure. The decision of the TCAB was reasonable. This court refused leave on 16/11/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 2/12/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. She was about 2 days out of time. In her affidavit, the applicant asserted that she did not have enough money to file an appeal.

8.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[2]

9.  The applicant is out of time for 2 days. It is not substantial delay. Inadequate money alone is not sufficient to extend the time for appeal. The merits of the intended judicial review is also an important factor [3].

10.  As set out in paragraphs 4—6 above, I agree with the TCAB decision. The applicant failed to establish that there was real risk of harm. The intended judicial review was of no merit.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.