bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

Applicants are being asked to show that Hong Kong is their only home

Expatriates applying to become permanent residents are facing new, stricter procedures that require them to show they have taken 'concrete steps' to adopt Hong Kong, and nowhere else, as their home.

Applicants are now required to sign a declaration stating that the special administrative region is their only place of permanent residence.

Many are being asked to provide evidence to support this, including proof of ownership of property in Hong Kong, an intention to establish their family here, and even their career plans.

The changes have led to concern in the expatriate community that the new approach will make becoming a permanent resident more difficult, especially for those who travel back to their countries of origin frequently or own second homes abroad.

But Assistant Director of Immigration Tsoi Hon-kuen sought to ease fears, saying a reasonable approach would be adopted and that people should not worry simply because they owned property outside Hong Kong.

He said  that the new arrangements  were required as a result of a Court of Final Appeal ruling in February.

'We had to do something to ensure our procedures were legal, so we are asking for a little bit more information. There has not been a policy change, it is a change in the law. We have to comply with the judgment,'  Mr Tsoi said.

Ironically, the top court's judgment went against the government, removing the unconstitutional requirement that only those whose conditions of  stay in Hong Kong have been lifted by the Director of Immigration can apply for permanent residency.

But it also stated that applicants must show that they have taken action to make Hong Kong alone their place of permanent residence.

Mark Daly, a solicitor involved in bringing the case, said the changes suggested the government was trying to get around the judgment, which had been intended to make the application process simpler and to remove 'discretionary hurdles' to securing the right of abode.

'By looking at items such as career plans and intentions, it appears the government is trying to carve out another unnecessary sphere of discretion,' he said.

Mr Daly said the Immigration Department had laid itself open to the allegation that it was a 'sore loser' which did not really want to follow the judgment.

'This risks their being open to future challenges if anyone is refused on such grounds,' he added.

The department's new approach was put in place in mid-June, and since then 2,700 of 5,000 outstanding applications have been processed.

One of the requirements now being made of some applicants is that they provide the government with their career plans and intentions concerning their future place of residence.

Mr Tsoi accepted that this may at first seem strange.

But he added: 'There may be circumstances in which the applicant is out of a job, having just completed his employment contract, or is alone in Hong Kong with no family members here. We would like to know his plan which may indicate his intention to take Hong Kong as his only place of residence.'

Principal Assistant Secretary for Security Linda So said applicants who spent time outside Hong Kong should not worry unduly about the new requirement to take Hong Kong as their only place of permanent residence.

'Absence needs to be assessed in terms of the duration, frequency and nature.' There were many different reasons for going abroad, whether to work, study, or look after sick relatives. Each case would be considered individually.

Mr Tsoi said efforts were being made to ensure applications were dealt with speedily and that the process was user-friendly. Before the court judgment, two applications had to be made, one to have conditions of stay lifted and another for permanent residency. Now only the latter is required.

The supporting documentation needed would vary from case to case, he said. 'I have given a direction to my staff to keep it to the minimum ... in some cases we ask for a little bit more.'

The Basic Law states that non-Chinese nationals are entitled to become permanent residents if they have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, ordinarily lived  in the city for a continuous period of at least seven years, and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence. It is the permanence requirement which has been adjusted by immigration officials to take into account the court ruling.

These changes come at a time when non-Chinese nationals are worried about other immigration reforms seen as favouring mainlanders at foreigners' expense.

On June 30, mainland professionals entering Hong Kong were allowed to bring their spouses and unmarried children with them for the first time. On the same day it was announced that all dependants, including non-Chinese nationals, would be required to seek permission from the director of immigration if they wanted to work or set up businesses.

Previously, expatriates had not needed permission. The reforms, which affect only people applying for a dependency visa from July 1, prompted criticism from some foreign business chambers which argued they would deter professionals from overseas from coming to Hong Kong. But Ms So said the restrictions applied equally to everyone and were aimed at  ensuring only people with scarce skills would be allowed to work.

'There seems to be some misunderstanding in the expatriate community that the new policy implemented by the government seems to be favouring mainlanders at the expense of foreign professionals,' she said. 'This is an absolute fallacy. The policy is to keep our doors open for all talents and professionals, whether foreigners or mainlanders, as long as they possess skills which are scarce in Hong Kong. Expatriates are as welcome here as they have ever been.'



Expats face new rules on residency