Re Shin Jeong Shik

HCAL 3018/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3018 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

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 the Republic of Korea. He came to Hong Kong in October 2008. He travelled in and out of Hong Kong to prolong his stay. In 2010, he got married in Hong Kong. In April 2012, he was arrested for using a false travel document and other offences [1]. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 21/12/2012.

2.His brother borrowed HK$3 million from a loan shark in 2003. He was the guarantor. He was unable to repay for his brother. He feared that the loan shark would kill him if he returned to Korea.

3.Around 2003, his brother borrowed HK$ 3 million from a loan shark to set up some businesses. He signed the loan agreement as the guarantor. His brother could not repay. He repaid the monthly interest for his brother from 2004 to 2006. In 2007, the loan shark demanded repayment of the principal. They came to his office and threatened him at knife point. There were threatening calls since then. He left Korea in October 2008.

4.The Director rejected his non-refoulement claim on 11/11/2015 and 26/6/2017.  His appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 19/10/2018.

5.The adjudicator pointed out that the applicant had delayed for 8 months before lodging his claim. The travel record showed that he returned to Korea 2—3 times after he came to Hong Kong. This contradicted his evidence. He was inconsistent as to the terms of the loan agreement. The adjudicator opined that the threatening letters would make him more reluctant to return to Korea. It was illogical that the loan shark would do this. The adjudicator disbelieved the factual background of his claim.

6.On 31/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.  He did not point out any specific error in the TCAB decision. This court dealt with his application on paper.

7.The adjudicator had analyzed his evidence in detail. There were critical inconsistencies which seriously undermined his 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 25/3/2021.

8.The applicant filed a summons on 17/6/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time for nearly 2½ months.

9.In his affidavit, the applicant indicated that he had exacerbation of gout in his knee and fingers. He was unable to move because of pain.

10.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]

11.The delay was nearly 2½ months. The whole period could not be explained just because of gout. In the absence of any medical evidence, I doubted the reason for his delay.

12.As set out above, 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.