Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limit of stay

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2001

FATEH MUHAMMAD v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

Citation

FATEH MUHAMMAD v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV24/2000

Time spent serving a substantial term of imprisonment or detention pursuant to sentence does not count as 'ordinary residence' for the seven-year qualification under Basic Law art.24(2)(4); the required seven continuous years must be immediately before the date of application for Hong Kong permanent resident status; accordingly the appellant had not yet met the qualification and the statutory provisions excluding imprisonment from ordinary residence and requiring immediacy are constitutional.
12 Oct 1988

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SEA-ANG PAISARN

Citation

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SEA-ANG PAISARN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/1988

The Court held that under section 11(5A)(c) an immigration officer may enlarge a limit of stay at any time, before or after its expiry; such retrospective enlargements remove the unlawfulness of any intervening overstay and therefore those periods count for the continuous seven‑year residence test; accordingly the appellant qualified as a Hong Kong permanent resident and enjoyed the right of abode, and the Immigration Tribunal's ruling in his favour was restored.
26 Apr 1988

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN

Citation

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP381/1988

The Tribunal's decision was quashed because the law permits variation of a limit of stay only while it is in force; each overstay interrupted lawful ordinary residence so the respondent could not satisfy the statutory continuous 7-year lawful residence requirement for permanent residence/right of abode, and the Tribunal's contrary legal conclusion was an error apparent on the face of the record.
14 Oct 1987

ELVIRA VERGARA AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

ELVIRA VERGARA AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/1987

An immigration officer lawfully may impose a condition limiting a foreign domestic helper's stay to a shorter period triggered by an event (the two‑weeks rule) when imposed as part of the permission to enter or remain; an endorsement permitting stay for employment is conditional on continuance of that employment so termination breaches the condition and does not confer a right to remain until the original six‑month expiry; accordingly declarations sought were refused and the appeals dismissed.
17 Aug 1987

ELVIRA VERGARA, EDITA TOLIBAS GWENN ARCILLA AND NICANORA MAGLINES v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

ELVIRA VERGARA, EDITA TOLIBAS GWENN ARCILLA AND NICANORA MAGLINES v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1409/1987

The applicants had no substantive right to remain in Hong Kong beyond the subsistence of their employment; the Executive's policy change and passport endorsements fell within powers conferred by the Immigration Ordinance and were not ultra vires or void for uncertainty; no legitimate expectation arose entitling applicants to remain to the previously endorsed expiry; judicial review relief was not available and the motion was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

FATEH MUHAMMAD v. COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SEA-ANG PAISARN

DIECTOR OF IMMIGRATION v. SAE-ANG PAISARN

ELVIRA VERGARA AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

ELVIRA VERGARA, EDITA TOLIBAS GWENN ARCILLA AND NICANORA MAGLINES v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL