When lawyer Mark Daly filed his application to become a permanent resident of Hong Kong, he included one document the immigration authorities had not been expecting. Along with the usual tax records and photocopies of his passport was a landmark court judgment he had helped win earlier that day.
The 39-year-old Canadian human rights specialist expected the ruling in favour of his Indian client to help smooth the passage of his own claim for a coveted permanent identity card - and those of all non-Chinese nationals claiming the right of abode. After all, the Court of Final Appeal had removed from the government a long-standing power to decide who can apply.
But instead, the Immigration Department's reaction was to put all applications - more than 5,000 of them - on hold and then to introduce changes to its procedures that Mr Daly fears will place more obstacles in the way of expatriates seeking to cement their status as Hong Kong residents.
The case raises questions about what it means for a foreign national to become a Hong Kong citizen and what people from overseas need to do to convince the authorities they regard the city as their home. It comes at a time when concerns exist about other recent changes to immigration rules that will, for the first time, require spouses and children of non-Chinese nationals to seek permission before taking up work or starting a business.
Officials assure the expatriate community there is nothing to worry about. But Mr Daly is not so sure. 'It sends out the wrong message. We should be sending out the message that we welcome such people,' he says.
Mr Daly's client was an Indian national who had come to Hong Kong in 1988 but had been refused a permanent identity card when he applied 10 years later. The case raised several important legal issues. One of them was whether the director of immigration could insist that only those applicants whose conditions of stay had been lifted by him could become permanent residents. All expatriates wanting the right of abode had to first apply for their conditions of stay to be lifted. This, argued Mr Daly, was unconstitutional because it gave the immigration chief the power to decide who would be allowed to apply for a right that is guaranteed by the Basic Law.