Xie Xiaoyi v. The Director of Immigration

Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 11 July 2000.

1. The applicants in these applications consolidated for this morning's purpose are all children adopted by Hong Kong permanent residents outside Hong Kong. They claimed that by reason of their adoption they have a right of abode under Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law.

Case No.
Court
Date11 Jul 2000
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000301A/1999

CACV 301/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 1999

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL Nos. 13 & 14/1998 (Consolidated))

_____________________________________________________

HCAL 13/98

BETWEEN
XIE XIAOYI (an infant suing by her father and next friend TSE KA SHU) Applicant
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Respondent

HCAL 14/98

BETWEEN
(1) TAM NGA YIN (an infant suing by her mother and next friend MAN YUET KWAI) Applicants
(2) LUI YIU LEUNG (an infant suing by his father and next friend LUI FUNG NAM)
(3) CHAN WAI WAH (an infant suing by his father and next friend TSANG HEUNG CHOI)
AND
THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION Respondent

________________________________

Coram: Hon Leong JA, Rogers JA and Ribeiro JA in Court

Date of Hearing: 11 July 2000

Date of Judgment: 11 July 2000

______________________

D E T E R M I N A T I O N

______________________

Hon Leong JA (giving the determination of the Court):

1. The applicants in these applications consolidated for this morning's purpose are all children adopted by Hong Kong permanent residents outside Hong Kong. They claimed that by reason of their adoption they have a right of abode under Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law.

2. The question raised in the appeal is whether Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law confers a right of abode to persons born outside Hong Kong but have been adopted by a Hong Kong permanent resident. This question concerns not only the status of the applicants but also other similarly adopted children. It also involves a construction of the Basic Law.

3. These applications are not opposed by the respondent. We agree that the appeal involves a question of great general or public importance in respect of which leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted to the applicants. Accordingly we grant leave. The costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

(Arthur Leong) (Anthony Rogers) (R A V Ribeiro)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Mr Patrick Szeto, instructed by Messrs Chaine, Chow and Barbara Hung for the applicant in HCAL 13/98

Miss Margaret Ng, instructed by Messrs Barnes and Daly for the applicants in HCAL 14/98

Mr Anthony Wu, PGC, instructed by the Department of Justice for the respondent