Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Basic law article 24

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2014

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

Citation

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

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV2/2014

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 f…
9 Oct 2013

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/2012

Application for leave to appeal refused. The court held Q1 inappropriate for leave as it is peculiarly fact‑sensitive and governed by Prem Singh; Q2 answered negatively—a person with visitor permission cannot be a non‑permanent resident; Q3 answered that the supervisory court has a discretion to refuse relief and need not remit to an inferior tribunal. No basis to grant leave under s22(1)(b).
7 Jun 2013

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/2012

Although the Tribunal erred in adopting a rigid rule equating the child's permanence and ordinary residence with the mother's, on the facts the mother had not taken concrete steps to make Hong Kong the child's sole permanent home and the child had no lawful, continuing permission to reside that would sustain seven years continuous ordinary residence; multiple‑entry visas did not secure a right of re‑entry; accordingly the appellant failed both the permanence and continuous residence requirements and the appeal was dismissed.
25 Mar 2013

ASIF ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIF ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV17/2011

A period of custody pending trial, even if followed by conviction and imprisonment, is not to be treated for the purposes of s.2(4)(b) as 'imprisonment or detention pursuant to the sentence or order of any court'; s.67A does not convert non‑punitive remand into punitive imprisonment and therefore the respondent was 'ordinarily resident' at the date of his verification application; appeal dismissed.
29 Jun 2001

LAU FONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LAU FONG v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV287/2000

Time for notifying the Respondent of the setting down of the appeal was extended to 4.00 p.m. on 6 July 2001 because no prejudice to the Respondent was shown and the appeal was not merely academic; extension served the interests of justice and the public importance of the issues. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying appeal.
25 Jun 1999

TAM NGA YIN AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

TAM NGA YIN AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL14/1998

Article 24(3) of the Basic Law must be construed to confer the right of abode on persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong who have been adopted by a Hong Kong permanent resident; the restriction in para 1(2)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance requiring a Hong Kong adoption is inconsistent with Article 24 and is void; accordingly the applicants (other than the adjourned case) are permanent residents with right of abode and specified removal orders were quashed or prohibited.
11 Jun 1999

LAU KONG YUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

LAU KONG YUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/1999

The removal orders and detention decisions were unlawful because the Director insisted on production of certificates of entitlement without considering the appellants' supporting materials or claims; where the statutory verification scheme is inoperative or unspecified, the Director must nevertheless consider claimants' evidence before making removal/detention decisions, although unverified claimants do not automatically gain a right to remain pending verification.
29 Jan 1999

CHAN KAM NGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

CHAN KAM NGA v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/1998

The Court held that Article 24(3) includes persons born outside Hong Kong of parents who are Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24(2) irrespective of whether the parent acquired that status before or after the child's birth, and that the words 'if the parent had the right of abode at the time of the birth of the person' in Schedule 1 paragraph 2(c) of the Immigration Ordinance contravene Article 24 and are therefore unconstitutional and null and void.