Wong Mei Heung and Another v. The Director of Immigration

Case No.HCAL 13/1997

Court

High Court CFI

Date22 Jan 1998

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL000013/1997

1997 A.L. No. 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

-----------------

BETWEEN
	(1) WONG MEI HEUNG	Applicants
	(2) LAM WAI CHING (suing by her father and next friend LAM KWOK MOON)
	AND
	THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Respondent

-----------------

Coram: The Hon. Mr. Justice Keith in Court

Date of Hearing: 22 January 1998

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 22 January 1998

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The Applicants are mother and daughter. They came to Hong Kong from mainland China. Last February, the Director of Immigration ordered their removal from Hong Kong and their return to China. Their appeal against those removal orders to the Immigration Tribunal was dismissed, and their petition to the Governor and the Secretary for Security for permission to remain in Hong Kong was rejected. The basis of their claim to be permitted to stay in Hong Kong was that under the Basic Law the daughter would acquire, on 1st July 1997, the right of abode in Hong Kong.

2. When immigration officers last April attempted to remove the Applicants from Hong Kong, a tug of war developed which attracted considerable publicity. The outcome of it was that Rogers J. prohibited the Director of Immigration from removing them from Hong Kong pending the outcome of their application for leave to apply for judicial review of the removal orders. In due course, that application was adjourned pending the outcome of the test case relating to the right of abode in Hong Kong which children from the mainland sought to exercise.

3. Since then, the Director of Immigration has decided that, provided that the mother returns to China, the daughter may remain in Hong Kong indefinitely. Since the mother is willing to return to China, the parties see no point in continuing these proceedings. They have agreed the terms of the consent order which I should make. I am now announcing the terms of that order in open court pursuant to para. 2.11 of the Practice Direction for cases in the Administrative Law List. The order which I make is as follows:

"Upon the joint application of the Applicants and the Respondent, and upon the Respondent undertaking to exercise her discretion under section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) to allow the 2nd Applicant to remain in Hong Kong unconditionally, and upon the Applicants withdrawing their application for leave to apply for judicial review and discontinuing these proceedings

4. IT IS ORDERED BY CONSENT that

	(i)	the order of 9th April 1997 restraining the Respondent from removing or deporting the Applicants from Hong Kong be discharged,
	(ii)	the Respondent be at liberty to remove the 1st Applicant from Hong Kong to mainland China on a date to be fixed by the Respondent, but not earlier than 6th February 1998, and
	(iii)	there be no order as to the costs of these proceedings."

5. Finally, there has been speculation in the press that the settlement of this case has resulted in the test case relating to the right of abode in Hong Kong which children from the mainland sought to exercise being somehow compromised. That is not correct. The settlement of this case has an impact on this case only. The issues which the test case raised are still very much live ones, and are to be addressed by the Court of Appeal in March.

	(Brian Keith)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance