Like Tree51Likes

Immigration: Registration of Persons Tribunal - Wan Chai

Reply
Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 4 9 ... LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,590

    Immigration: Registration of Persons Tribunal - Wan Chai

    Has anyone had any experience with launching an appeal as an individual to the Registration of Persons Tribunal in Wan Chai, that sits independently from the Immigration Department, in relation to Chinese citizenship and/or Right of Abode in the HKSAR?

    I am interested in knowing more about how they (a) approach immigration appeals, (b) how they are composed, and (c) on what basis they operate.

    For example, in September 2013, there was an article featured in the SCMP of a British-born boy, James McAllister, born in 2002 in the UK, who was denied HKSAR Chinese Citizenship and ROA by the Immigration Department on the grounds that his parents were "settled abroad", but which was overruled by the Registration of Persons Tribunal.

    Many thanks


    Registration of Persons Tribunal

    The Registration of Persons Tribunal was established in 1987 under Section 3C of the Registration of Persons Ordinance, Cap. 177, to deal with appeals made under section 3D(1) of the Ordinance by a person who is aggrieved by a decision of a registration officer

    (a) not to issue a permanent identity card to him; or
    (b) to declare a permanent identity card issued to him to be invalid.

    An appeal to the Tribunal shall be dealt with by two adjudicators. A secretariat has been set up to provide day-to-day administrative support to the Tribunal.

    Enquiry: Rooms 1602-1604, 16/F, East Town Building, 41 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.

    Telephone: 2520 6129
    Fax: 2520 6590
    E-mail address : [email protected]


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,590

    Article from the SCMP below:

    Hong Kong's immigration department challenges boys right to abode ruling

    AUSTIN CHIU [email protected]
    PUBLISHED : Thursday, 12 September, 2013, 12:00am
    UPDATED : Thursday, 12 September, 2013, 12:17pm


    Name:  _mpt32_20884169.jpg
Views: 1380
Size:  376.0 KB
    The director of immigration is seeking a judicial review of the tribunal's ruling. Photo: Reuters

    A British-born boy who was granted the right of abode by a Hong Kong tribunal is expected to see his case go before the courts in a challenge launched by the Immigration Department.

    James McAllister, 11, was born in 2002 to a Hong Kong permanent resident who married a British man, court papers show.
    James' two elder sisters and brother were born between 1995 and 1999 in Riyadh and Taiwan. All three have the right of abode in Hong Kong as granted by the department, the papers show.

    His mother Chan Hei-yee failed three times to get him a permanent identity card from the department, but succeeded in June before an appeal tribunal.

    The director of immigration, in his capacity as commissioner of registration, is seeking a judicial review of the tribunal's ruling, saying the decision is legally unreasonable and should be quashed.

    "[Chan] had settled abroad at the time of the birth of [James] in 2002, or even much earlier, i.e., at the time of [her] marriage in 1993 and upon her acquisition of British citizenship in 1994," the department said in its application for a judicial review.
    Chan married a British diplomat in 1993, the court papers show. Online information suggests the father is Dominic McAllister, science and innovation counsellor at the British embassy in Doha.

    Chan twice filed proof of James' eligibility for a permanent identity card, but both times the department turned her down, the papers show. She applied for a permanent identity card for her son in 2011. The commissioner rejected her application, citing "insufficient evidence".

    In December 2011, she filed an appeal to the tribunal, which ruled in favour of the boy in June.

    The Immigration Ordinance says a Chinese national born outside Hong Kong is a Hong Kong permanent resident if, at the time of their birth, one of the parents is a Chinese citizen born in Hong Kong or a Chinese citizen who has lived in Hong Kong continuously for seven years.

    The department decided James was not a Hong Kong permanent resident because he was not considered a Chinese national - and that, in turn, was because his mother had settled abroad, in Britain, by the time he was born.

    The department said the tribunal deprived it of a fair trial before reaching the decision.

    The commissioner asked the High Court to quash the decision and to send the case to a differently constituted tribunal for reconsideration.


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,590

    Also another article from the SCMP below:

    British-born man whose residency status is anything but permanent

    High Court asked to quash ruling on man born in Britain whose ID card status keeps changing

    PUBLISHED : Thursday, 17 January, 2013, 12:00am
    UPDATED : Thursday, 17 January, 2013, 3:15am
    Austin Chiu [email protected]

    When is a permanent resident no longer a permanent resident? That is the question now being put to the High Court by the Immigration Department in a case involving a man born in Britain to Hong Kong permanent residents.

    British national Man Wai-sing, 38, was given a permanent resident's identity card in 1995 when the Immigration Department decided that he was then a British Dependent Territories citizen and he had connections with Hong Kong because his parents were born in the city.

    But 15 years later, the Immigration Department considered Man no longer a permanent resident. It ruled that after the handover being a Chinese national was a prerequisite to being a Hong Kong permanent resident under a law it believed applied in Man's case.

    The department ruled Man was not a Chinese national because he was born in Britain, he acquired British nationality by birth, and his parents had settled there when he was born.

    Man had also been absent from Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 36 months and he did not return to settle in Hong Kong within 18 months after the handover, the department said. He is currently residing in Britain.
    However, Man still enjoyed the right to land, meaning that he had no restrictions getting in and out of Hong Kong.

    Unhappy with the decision, Man filed an appeal with the Registrations of Persons Tribunal, which in the end found in his favour.

    The tribunal ruled that the Chinese Nationality Law did not apply in Man's case because the law came into force only after Man's birth. And even if the law did apply, Man could still be considered a Chinese national because his parents acquired right of abode in Britain only two years after Man was born.

    Following the decision, the department wrote to Man in December saying he could only apply for a permanent identity card subject to validation of the tribunal's decision.
    Now, the Immigration Department is asking the High Court for permission to lodge a judicial review of the tribunal's decision. It wants the ruling quashed and the case sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.

    The department says in its application that the tribunal "did not appear to appreciate that the establishment of the HKSAR introduced a new constitutional order and new categories" of Hong Kong permanent residents.

    It adds that the old permanent identity cards had already been declared invalid from September 2007 by the Registration of Persons (Invalidation of Identity Cards) Order 2007.

    The department also says the Chinese Nationality Law is a "control mechanism" to be deployed in assessing a person's right of abode after July 1997.


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,590

    Happy new year 2015

    I'll assume that almost no one has had any experience with the ROA Registration of Persons Appeal tribunal then!


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,267
    Quote Originally Posted by dossier:
    Happy new year 2015

    I'll assume that almost no one has had any experience with the ROA Registration of Persons Appeal tribunal then!
    Nope and hopefully won't need to.
    Submitted my application for permenant residency yesterday.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sarcasm - because beating the crap out of people is illegal
    Posts
    14,637
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo:
    Nope and hopefully won't need to.
    Submitted my application for permenant residency yesterday.
    I thought you were PR forever ago!

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,267
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire ex-ax:
    I thought you were PR forever ago!
    Nope I was given RTL not perm.
    Just hit 7 years in HK.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Clear Water Bay (In Da Jungle)
    Posts
    10,040
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo:
    Nope I was given RTL not perm.
    Just hit 7 years in HK.
    even though your leaving anyways, your getting the PR just so you can collect the govt $6K handout if any for the future LOL

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,267
    Quote Originally Posted by wtbhotia:
    even though your leaving anyways, your getting the PR just so you can collect the govt $6K handout if any for the future LOL
    Yup and using it to invest in yellow umbrellas lol
    wtbhotia likes this.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,591

    Dossier, you just write them and ask for guidance ?


Reply
Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 4 9 ... LastLast