GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER

The Court held that Prem Singh's test for Article 24(2)(4) (requiring both subjective intention and objective evidence of steps taken to make Hong Kong one's permanent residence) applies to child applicants with assessment taking into account actions or arrangements by parents or guardians; on the facts the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
GUTIERREZ JOSEPH JAMES, a minor v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant (appellant): gutierrez joseph james; 1st Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION; 2nd Respondent: REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 September 2014
Case Number
FACV2/2014
Procedural Posture
Final Appeal (civil) / Judgment by Court of Final Appeal (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Abode, Permanent Residence, Ordinary Residence, Verification Procedure, Basic Law Article 24, Visitor Status and Registration, Continuity of Residence, Costs
Source Language
et
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Family/child Law Right of Abode Permanent Residence Ordinary Residence Verification Procedure +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

gutierrez joseph james

Applicant (appellant)

COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

1st Respondent

REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Appeal (civil) / Judgment by Court of Final Appeal (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What must a child or young adult non-Chinese national born in Hong Kong establish to satisfy Article 24(2)(4) permanence requirement?
  2. 2 Whether exempted visitors under Regulation 25 qualify as non-permanent residents for Article 31 travel/entry rights
  3. 3 Whether s.11(10) Immigration Ordinance interrupts continuity of ordinary residence when permission to remain expires on departure

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Prem Singh's test for Article 24(2)(4) (requiring both subjective intention and objective evidence of steps taken to make Hong Kong one's permanent residence) applies to child applicants with assessment taking into account actions or arrangements by parents or guardians; on the facts the appellant, aged 10 at application, failed to show objective steps or arrangements by his mother or others establishing that he had taken Hong Kong as his permanent residence. The Court further held Regulation 25 proviso does not make exempted visitors "qualified to obtain" identity cards for Article 24(4) and therefore they are not non-permanent residents for Article 31 purposes;...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order nisi for costs against the appellant; parties permitted to lodge written submissions on costs within 14 days and in default the order nisi shall stand as an order absolute