Re Mirna Lestari

HCAL 1531/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1531 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge P. Li in Chambers

Date of Decision: 11 November 2021

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.The applicant is an Indonesian.[1] Her domestic helper contract was terminated around May 2009. She remained in Hong Kong. She overstayed until she was arrested by the police on 25/11/2010 [2]. She filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 6/4/2015.

2.The applicant was in fear that she might be harmed or killed by the creditor of her grandmother. Her grandmother had borrowed money from the creditor to pay for her education fees. She did not know the details of the loan. Since October 2007, the creditor came to her home several times. The creditor threatened her grandmother for repayment. She hid herself away from the creditor. In August 2008, she came to Hong Kong under a domestic helper contract. Her grandmother told her that the creditor threatened to kill her. Her contract was terminated three months later. She returned to Indonesia in November 2008. She lost contact with her grandmother. The villagers did not know her whereabouts. She came to Hong Kong again in February 2009 under another domestic helper contract. Her contract was terminated in May 2009.

3.The Director rejected her claim on 4/8/2015[3] and 11/9/2017[4]. The TCAB rejected her appeal on 30/7/2018.

4.The adjudicator found that the applicant’s story was too vague. There was no evidence about the identity of the creditor. The applicant had never met the creditor. She was never assaulted or harmed by the creditor. The threats were related to her through the grandmother on the phone. The details of the debt were unknown. She had lost contact with her grandmother for 10 years. There was insufficient evidence to prove her claim

5.On 2/8/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the TCAB decision

6.Deputy Judge CP Pang refused leave for judicial review on 23/12/2020. The Judge queried the reason for the creditor to target the applicant after so many years. The Judge pointed out that there was long delay before she filed her claim. It was inconsistent with someone in genuine fear for her life. The Judge found that the decision of the TCAB was reasonable. There was no error of law or procedures. There was no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review.

7.The applicant filed a summons on 3/2/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Pang. She was nearly a month out of time.

8.In her affirmation, the applicant asserted that she was out of time because of financial problem.

9.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.[5]

10.The applicant is out of time for about 1 month. It is a significant delay. I do not accept financial problem as a reason for the delay. However, the merits of the intended judicial review is the important issue [6].

11.The applicant failed to establish that there was real risk of harm. The adjudicator was justified in rejecting the basis of her claim given the vague and insufficient evidence. I agree with the decision of Deputy Judge Pang. The intended judicial review was of no merit.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.