Re Papia

HCAL 1634/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1634 OF 2019

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge P. Li in Chambers

Date of Decision: 22 December 2021

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.The applicant is from Bangladesh. In May and October 2014, her domestic helper contracts were twice terminated early in Hong Kong. She overstayed until 28/10/2014 when she surrendered to the Immigration Department. She lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 8/1/2015.

2.The basis of her claim was that D and H would harm or ill-treat her if she returned to Bangladesh. D and H were members of Awami League (AL) and notorious gangsters.  D demanded her to marry him. D threatened to abduct and kill her if she refused.

3.On 7/10/2013, her brothers had a fight with D, H and their gang at a market. Her brothers were injured and needed suturing for their wounds. The next day, she met D and H on the way to school. D demanded her to marry him. She was scared and ran home. Shortly afterwards, she relocated to Dhaka and stayed with her aunt. She worked in a factory. However, she was harassed by 3 unknown men every day. She did not know if they were sent by D and H. Her aunt advised her to leave Bangladesh for Hong Kong. She came to Hong Kong in May 2014 as a domestic helper.

4.The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 30/1/2018.  Her appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 11/6/2019.

5.The adjudicator concluded that the applicant was not credible. She initially said that she finished schooling at the age of 19. However, when she was threatened by D in 2013, she asserted that she was still at school. In her NCF, she mentioned only one encounter with D but she told the adjudicator that there were 3 encounters. She was not at the scene during the attack of her brothers. What she gathered about the assailants was not her personal knowledge. The adjudicator opined that the applicant fabricated the basis of her claim.

6.On 14/6/2019, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.  She stressed that she was still under threat. Her enemies were the AL members. She disagreed with the TCAB.

7.A hearing was fixed on 23/2/2021.  She explained that she could not cook well and was dismissed. She had nothing to update. She had no other complaint.

8.The adjudicator had analyzed her evidence in detail. There were critical inconsistencies which seriously undermined her credibility. I agree with the findings of the adjudicator. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the TCAB is reasonable. I refused leave on 20/5/2021.

9.The applicant filed a summons on 4/6/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  She was out of time for 1 day.

10.In her affirmation, the applicant indicated that she did not receive the decision from this court.

11.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.[1]

12.The delay was just one day. The applicant did not give any detailed circumstances nonetheless. The decision of this court was sent to her last known address. There was no return of mail. The address is the same as in the notice of hearing dated 29/12/2020. She must have received the notice, or else, she would not attend the hearing. In the summons for extension of time dated 4/6/2021, she put the same address. I doubted her reason for the delay.

13.As set out in paragraphs 5 & 8, I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.