Tse Partick Yiu Hon v. Hong Kong Special Adminstrative Region Passports Appeal Board and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1240/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 January 2001.
1. The Applicant TSE Yiu Hon (Yiu Hon) was born in Germany on 15th October 1985. At the time of his birth, Yiu Hon had British Dependent Territories citizenship. He was issued a British National (Overseas) passport on 1 August 1986, and it was indicated therein that he had the right of abode in Hong Kong.
Cites 1 case
|
HCAL001240X/2000 [English translation - 英譯本] HCAL 1240/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST --------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------- Coram: Hon Mr Justice Yeung in Court Date of Hearing: 21-22 December 2000 Date of Judgement: 17 January 2001 ---------------------------------- JUDGMENT ---------------------------------- 1. The Applicant TSE Yiu Hon (Yiu Hon) was born in Germany on 15th October 1985. At the time of his birth, Yiu Hon had British Dependent Territories citizenship. He was issued a British National (Overseas) passport on 1 August 1986, and it was indicated therein that he had the right of abode in Hong Kong. 2. Both parents of Yiu Hon were born in Hong Kong and have had the right of abode in Hong Kong. Previously they had British Dependent Territories Citizenship passports, but they are currently holding Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) passports. 3. In June 1976, the father of Yiu Hon left Hong Kong for employment in Germany. His mother also went to Germany to join her husband in July 1981. 4. The elder brother of Yiu Hon, whose name is Yiu Chuen, was also born in Germany. He was born in 1981. 5. In 1990, the parents of Yiu Hon renounced their British Dependent Territories Citizenships and applied for German nationality. Both applications were approved and they were issued with German passports in January 1991. When they applied for German nationality, they included Yiu Hon in their applications. Though Yiu Hon was naturalized as a German national, he did not have to renounce his British Dependent Territories Citizenship, the reason being, as provided in section 12(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, that only a British citizen of full age and capacity can effectively renounce his citizenship. 6. According to the information provided by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Hong Kong to the Immigration Department, a person who applies for naturalization into German nationality has to renounce his original nationality, exemptions from this requirement being possible in exceptional cases. One exceptional case is that a minor, according to his respective national law, has no right to give up his original nationality. Having been granted German nationality, the minor may retain his original nationality. 7. That explains why Yiu Hon, upon his naturalization as a German national, did not have to follow his parents in their renunciations of their British Dependent Territories citizenships. 8. On 11 July 1998, after the government of the People's Republic of China (China) had resumed its sovereignty over Hong Kong, Yiu Hon's mother Madam Cheng Oi Kwan applied on his behalf for the issue of a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) passport. The passport was issued on 6 August 1998. 9. Yiu Hon's passport was cancelled on 26 June 1999 by the Immigration Department (the Director). Subsequently, Yiu Hon lodged an appeal to the Appeal Board pursuant to section 10 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Passports Ordinance. However the appeal was dismissed on 29 March 2000. 10. Yiu Hon applied to this Court on 22 June 2000 for leave to apply for judicial review, seeking relief to quash the decision of the Director of Immigration to cancel his HKSAR passport and to order the Director to return his HKSAR passport. 11. I allowed Yiu Hon's application and leave was granted for him to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Director to cancel his HKSAR passport. 12. Section 3 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Ordinance Cap 539 provides that:
13. When Madam Cheng Oi Kwan applied for a HKSAR passport on behalf of Yiu Hon, she made the following declaration:-
14. The record shows that Yiu Hon was naturalized as a German national on 13 December 1990 with his parents and has settled in German for a long period of time. 15. According to the information supplied to the Immigration Department by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Hong Kong, a person who applies for naturalization into the German nationality, in general has to renounce his original nationality. Exemptions are possible in exceptional cases. Naturalization is only granted upon a personal application and according to the respective person's own free wish and will. If the applicant is under 16 years of age, his application will be pronounced by his legal guardian (in general both parents). Any declaration given by the legal guardian in the course of the application is considered binding on the applicant. 16. On the grounds that Yiu Hon was born in Germany and naturalized as a German national, and that he has settled in Germany, the Director decided that he had lost his Chinese nationality under the Chinese Nationality Law. Therefore he was not a Chinese national and was not entitled to the issue of a HKSAR passport 17. The declaration made by Madam Cheng Oi Kwan that Yiu Hon was a Chinese national when she applied on behalf of Yiu Hon for the issue of a HKSAR passport is a false declaration. Therefore, the Director is entitled to cancel the HKSAR passport of Yiu Hon. 18. In this judicial review application, this Court has to decide whether the stance of the Director is lawful and correct. 19. According to Article 154 of the Basic Law, the Central People's Government shall authorize the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to issue, in accordance with law, passports of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China to all Chinese citizens who hold permanent identity cards of the Region. A holder of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport must be a Chinese citizen holding a permanent identity card of the Region. 20. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Ordinance was also enacted on the basis of the Basic Law. 21. The Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese Nationality Law) stipulates that:
22. Article 3 and Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law are in clear and unambiguous terms. The basic principles listed out therein are straightforward and obvious. 23. However Hong Kong has a set of circumstances unique to herself. For some 150 years before 1 July 1997 when China resumed its exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, Hong Kong was a British 'colony'. People born in Hong Kong or had been naturalized as British nationals all had British nationality. 24. In the early 90's of the twentieth century, the British Government also amended its nationality laws to allow a small number of Hong Kong residents to acquire British citizenship through 'British Nationality Selection Scheme' and they would also be entitled to the issue of British passports. 25. If Hong Kong is regarded as a foreign place and the relevant clauses of the Chinese Nationality Law are applied to the above people, they may automatically lose their Chinese nationality because of the British nationality that they have acquired. 26. The stance of China in respect of Hong Kong is clear. She does not recognize the unfair treaties signed by the Qing Government under coercion by Britain when she invaded China in the 19th century. Those treaties included the Treaty of Nanking signed on 29 August 1842 which ceded the Island of Hong Kong perpetually, the Convention of Peking signed on 24 October 1860 which ceded perpetually the part of Chinese territory from the south of the Boundary Street on the Kowloon Peninsular, and the Convention respecting an Extension of Hong Kong Territory signed at Peking on 9 June 1898 which 'leased' the territory from the south of Shenzhen river to the north of Boundary Street and the surrounding islands, large and small, for a period ending on 30 June 1997. 27. The standpoint of the Chinese government in respect of Hong Kong has all along been that Hong Kong has never ceased to be part of the territory of China and the concept of colonial territory is not applicable to Hong Kong. 28. Shortly after China had regained its seat in the United Nations, Mr. Huang Hua, the then Chinese Permanent Representative to the United Nations, on 8 March 1972 sent a letter to the Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee on De-colonization declaring specifically that, "the questions of Hong Kong and Macau belong to the category of questions resulting from the series of unequal treaties left over by history, treaties which the imperialists imposed on China. Hong Kong and Macau are part of Chinese territory occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities. The settlement of the questions Hong Kong and Macau is entirely within China's sovereign right and do not at all fall under the ordinary category of colonial territories." 29. The position of the Chinese government in respect of the question of Hong Kong won international support. In the United Nations Assembly in November 1972, the United Nations passed a resolution to remove the names of Hong Kong and Macau from the list of colonies by a vote of 99 to 5. 30. The government of China has never recognized the British nationality possessed by people born in Hong Kong by virtue of their place of birth, nor the British nationality acquired by any other people through naturalization in Hong Kong, still less the British nationality acquired through the above 'British Nationality Selection Scheme'. 31. Similarly, the government of China does not recognize the 'British Dependent Territories Citizens passport' or 'British Nationals (Overseas) passport' issued to the Hong Kong residents by the British Government as the valid identity document of one's nationality, and 'British passport' issued through the 'British Nationality Selection Scheme' is not recognized either. 32. All Hong Kong Chinese compatriots holding such passports are nonetheless Chinese nationals. The Chinese government does not oppose to the above-mentioned people using the passports as valid travel documents for the purpose of travelling to other countries or territories outside China. However, they shall not be entitled to British consular protection in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or any other parts of the People's Republic of China. 33. When Britain and China discussed the way to handle the status of those Hong Kong people with British nationality during the meeting on the settlement of the question of Hong Kong, it was obvious to all that they could not reach any consensus. 34. In the Joint Declaration signed by the two countries on 19 December 1984, there is no agreement at all on the way to handle those Hong Kong people having British nationality. The two countries only stated their stances by an exchange of memoranda. 35. The contents of the United Kingdom Memorandum are as follows:-
And the Chinese Memorandum states:-
36. With a view to resolve any possible misunderstanding arising from the above Memoranda and the Chinese Nationality Law, and to settle any questions springing up in the wake of the 'British Nationality Selection Scheme', the Nineteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress on 15 May 1996 adopted the Explanations on some questions concerning the implementation of the Chinese Nationality Law (hereinafter as 'the Explanations'). 'The Explanations' are as follows: "EXPLANATIONS OF SOME QUESTIONS BY THE (Adopted at the Nineteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the
37. Mr. Pun, Counsel for Yiu Hon says in his submission that according to Article 67 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress not only has the power to interpret the law, but also the power to partially supplement and amend, when the National People's Congress is not in session, laws enacted by the National People's Congress. 38. He argues that 'the Explanations' have in fact amended Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law and caused the Article to lose its effect. 39. He also points out that Section 2 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Ordinance clearly sets out that " 'Chinese citizen' means a person of Chinese nationality under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, as implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with the Explanations of Some Questions by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Concerning the Implementation of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region adopted at the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress at the 8th National People's Congress on 15 may 1996." 40. Mr. Pun, the Counsel, says that Clause 2 of 'the Explanations' states that:
41. Mr. Pun, emphasizes that Yiu Hon is of Chinese descent. He is a holder of Hong Kong permanent identity card and China Re-entry Permit, and has the right of abode in Hong Kong. His parents are also permanent Hong Kong residents. Therefore Yiu Hon is a 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriot'. According to Clause 2 of 'the Explanations', Yiu Hon is a Chinese national and is therefore entitled to a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport. 'Compatriots' is a general term which refers to people of the same consanguinity (see 'Fa Xue Ci Hai' edited by Li Wei Min) or the same country (see 'Ci Hai - 1' 1989 edition). Therefore all people of Chinese descent may be collectively called Chinese compatriots. 42. But does the Hong Kong Chinese compatriots in 'the Explanations' refer to anyone in general who is or was related to Hong Kong in some way and of Chinese descent, or does the term refer specifically to a particular class of people? 43. The key issue to be addressed in this matter is: who should fall within the category of 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots'. 'The Explanations' does not give any interpretation to the term 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots'. There are no persuasive authorities or writings to help the Court to decide which category of people are 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots'. 44. Miss Kwok, Counsel for the Director of Immigration Department, asserts that 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots' refers to 'Hong Kong Chinese nationals'. It would be nondescript from a rhetoric or grammatical point of view to say that all 'Hong Kong Chinese nationals' are 'Chinese nationals', so it is written in the Explanations that all 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots' are 'Chinese nationals'. 45. The above argument is far from convincing, it also renders 'the Explanations' meaningless. The Court is of the view that to address the key issue in this case, no ruling is required in respect of this argument. 46. Article 67 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China vests power on the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to interpret the laws and to partially supplement and amend laws when the National People's Congress is not in session. However such supplement and amendment is allowed 'provided that the basic principles of these laws are not contravened.' 47. This must be borne in mind when one is deliberating over the correct meaning of the term. 48. Article 8 of the Basic Law stipulates that:
49. The Chinese Nationality Law is national law and has been implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with effect from 1 July 1997 by virtue of Annex III of the Basic Law. 50. When deliberating the legal issues arising from the Chinese Nationality Law, of course the Court should employ common law concepts and principles. But the questions concerning the Chinese Nationality Law are unique, there will be no precedents and few authorities on the questions of Chinese Nationality Law in other common law jurisdictions. Under these circumstances, to refer to the authorities and writings on Chinese Nationality law published in China with a view to determine the underlying principles and the legislative intent of the National People's Congress is only proper and beyond reproach. The Court is also entitled to do so. Of course the approach to be taken should not contravene the legal principles of the common law. 51. It has already been mentioned above that Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law is clear and unambiguous and the basic principles are explicit: Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will automatically lose Chinese nationality. 52. Before the promulgation of the Chinese Nationality Law in 1980, the approach of the Chinese Government to the question of overseas Chinese having dual nationality was consistent with the basic principles stated above. 53. In Modern Nationality Law (Editors-in chief: Li Shuang Yuan and Jiang Xin Qu, Hu Nan People's Publisher), the question of the dual nationality of overseas Chinese is discussed in page 128:
54. The principle adopted by the Chinese government in dealing with the problem of dual nationality of overseas Chinese can be seen in the treaties it signed with countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, etc. 55. China signed 'Treaty on the Question of Dual Nationality' with Indonesia on 22 April 1955. It is stipulated that:
56. The Joint Communiques signed by China with Malaysia and Thailand respectively on 31 May 1974 and 1 July 1975 have similar provisions. 57. Article 5 of the Joint Communique signed between China and Malaysia states as follows:
58. Article 8 of the Joint Communique signed between China and Thailand also has similar provision as follows:
59. The editor of Modern Nationality Law mentioned above has also stated China's policy on nationality at p.136: -
60. The Chinese Nationality Law promulgated in 1980 is enacted in accordance with the basic principles stated above: (1) it does not recognize dual nationality of Chinese national; (2) Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will automatically lose Chinese nationality. However, a Chinese national must satisfy these two conditions before he shall automatically lose Chinese nationality under Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law. Either one cannot do. The two conditions are as follows:
61. Accordingly, a Chinese national who has of his own free will been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality will not lose Chinese nationality as long as he is still settled in China. Even for those Chinese nationals who have lost Chinese nationality by reason of having settled abroad and having been naturalized as a foreign national or acquired foreign nationality, they may have their Chinese nationality restored after they have returned and settled in China. 62. It is the consistent position of the Chinese Government that Hong Kong is a part of the territory of China, that China has never recognized the three unequal treaties forced upon her by Britain, and that people in Hong Kong are settled in Chinese territories instead of abroad and thus their status is different from that of the overseas Chinese who have settled abroad. 63. In Course of Study on the Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law (Editor-in chief: Xue Chong de, The People's University of China Press, p.272), the following comments are made:
64. Similar views were also expressed in General Principles of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Fu Xi Min, the Procurator of China Press, p.100)
65. It can be seen from the aforesaid that the status of nationality of Chinese compatriots settled in Hong Kong is clearly different from that of the overseas Chinese who are settled abroad. Compatriots who are settled in Hong Kong cannot be regarded as having settled abroad and they therefore would not lose Chinese nationality. 66. As the provisions of the Chinese Nationality Law applies in Hong Kong, the nationality of Hong Kong residents shall be dealt with in accordance with the Chinese Nationality Law. That being so, 'the Explanations' must be compatible with the provisions of the Chinese Nationality Law and they must not contradict or conflict with each other. 67. Having taken account of the particular historical background of Hong Kong and the established position of the Chinese Government on Hong Kong; and having considered the basic principles of the Chinese Nationality Law and that any approach to the Explanation shall not be inconsistent with such basic principles, the 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots' referred to in Clause 2 of 'the Explanation' is 'the Chinese compatriots settled in Hong Kong', that is, the Hong Kong compatriots who have Chinese nationality. A permanent resident of Hong Kong who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will is not one of them. 68. To hold that a person is a 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriot' only because he is a Hong Kong permanent resident of Chinese decent, holding a permanent identity card with parents also being permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and to treat him as a Chinese national by reason of the above without paying regard to the fact that he has settled abroad and has acquired foreign nationality, is an approach which is inconsistent with the basic principles of the Chinese Nationality Law. Such approach fails to reflect the legislative intent of the National People's Congress and the intention of the Standing Committee when 'the Explanation' was made. Nor does it have regard to the Chinese Government's position in distinguishing Hong Kong and Macau compatriots from overseas Chinese. 69. Further, this approach is inconsistent with Section 3 of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passports Ordinance, which provides that an applicant shall not be entitled to have a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport issued to him unless he has satisfied the three conditions: (a) he is a Chinese citizen; (b) he is a permanent resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; and (c) he is a holder of a valid permanent identity card. 70. I find that the 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriots' as referred to in line 1 of Clause 2 of 'the Explanations' are the Hong Kong compatriots who are settled in Hong Kong and have Chinese nationality. Otherwise, the Explanations will be inconsistent with the basic principles of the Chinese Nationality Law. 71. In order to be lawfully settled in Hong Kong, a Chinese national must, of course, be a permanent resident of Hong Kong under Article 24 of the Basic Law, and must come within the meaning of being 'settled in Hong Kong' as defined in Section 1(5) in Schedule 1of the Immigration Ordinance. 72. The speech made by Mr Qiao Xiao Yang, the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Affairs Commission, at the Nineteenth Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress clearly shows that the persons as referred to in Clause 2 of 'the Explanations' only include Hong Kong Chinese compatriots who are either holders of the 'British Dependent Territories Citizens passport' or 'British Nationals (Overseas) passport'. The following is the relevant part of the speech of Mr. Qiao:
73. But as a matter of fact, looking at the wording of Clause 2 of 'the Explanation', it can still be arguable as to whether it is only applicable to Hong Kong Chinese compatriots holding 'British Dependent Territories Citizens passports' or 'British Nationals (Overseas) passports', and exclude Hong Kong Chinese compatriots holding other foreign passports. 74. Where a Hong Kong Chinese compatriot has been of his own free will naturalized as a foreign national or acquired foreign nationality other than British Dependent Territories citizenship or British citizenship, and is settled in Hong Kong holding a foreign passport other than British passport, can he continue to have or restore the status as a Chinese national under Clause 2 of 'the Explanation'? Is he required to make a declaration to the authority of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region responsible for nationality applications under Clause 5 of 'the Explanation' before he can effectively change his nationality? The answers to the above questions are not clear. However, appropriate approach in dealing with them can be gleaned from the Notes for Guidance for Application for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport printed by the Immigration Department. 75. In the column headed 'Who is eligible for a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport' in the Notes, it is stated as follows:
76. The above approach is consistent with the speech of Mr. Qiao Xiao Yang and properly reflects the true meaning of 'the Explanation'. 77. All the above clearly show that Clause 2 of 'the Explanation' is only applicable to 'Chinese compatriots settled in Hong Kong'. 78. Miss Kwok has expressed to me that she has reservations about the Hong Kong permanent resident status of Yiu Hon. Whether or not Yiu Hon can lawfully settle in Hong Kong is not a question that I have to resolve. Nor am I prepared to deal with the question as to whether Yiu Hon can return to settle in Hong Kong, and in accordance with 'the Explanation' to restore his status as a Chinese national. When necessary, the court would certainly make a decision according to all relevant information provided. 79. However, Yiu Hon was born and is settled in Germany. During the 10 years from March 1991 to January 2000, he returned to Hong Kong every year except for the years 1994, 1995 and 1997. But each time he stayed for a brief period and there is no evidence to show that he is prepared to settle in Hong Kong. 80. At present, Yiu Hon may be regarded as 'overseas Chinese' or 'overseas Chinese compatriot' or 'German Chinese compatriot'. But he is not a 'Hong Kong Chinese compatriot'. He is not settled in Hong Kong, 'the Explanation' is, therefore, not applicable to him. He is still subject to Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law. 81. Mr. Pun has also emphasized that the fact that Yiu Hon holds a Home Visit Permit shows that the Chinese Government recognizes Yiu Hon has the status as a Chinese national. I do not understand the principle on which the Chinese Government issued Yiu Hon a Home Visit Permit. However, under the principle of one county, two systems, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will not be subject to the decision of the Chinese Government on the above question. The Court shall decide whether or not Yiu Hon is still a 'Chinese national' in accordance with the Chinese Nationality Law and related provisions. The fact that Yiu Hon holds a Home Visit Permit has no direct bearing or significance on the matter in question. 82. Mr. Pun has also put forward another argument to support Yiu Hon's application. He argues that under Article 9 of the Chinese Nationality Law, a Chinese national shall lose Chinese nationality only when he 'has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will'. As the decision for Yiu Hon to be naturalized and to acquire German nationality was made by his parents, it cannot be regarded as a decision made of his own free will. Accordingly, Yiu Hon has not lost his Chinese nationality. 83. I do not find this argument persuasive at all. 84. All matters relating to a minor, in particular, matters involving nationality and application of important documents would naturally be dealt with by his parents or legal guardian. This is internationally recognized and is only natural. 85. The minor must be bound by the decisions of his parents or legal guardian made on his behalf. Otherwise, none of the rules and regulations made under the nationality law or other laws can be enforced. 86. Article 14 of the Chinese Nationality Law has the following stipulation:
87. Naturalization as a foreign national or acquiring foreign nationality under the Chinese Nationality Law is something that happens in a foreign country. The Chinese Nationality Law certainly cannot expressly provide that the application of a minor may be made on his behalf by his parents or agent. Nevertheless, it clearly permits and recognizes application relating to nationality to be made on behalf of a minor by his parents or legal representative. 88. Miss Kwok has also relied on a number of authoritative Chinese writings to support the argument that the decision of the parents or legal representative in respect of nationality application on behalf of a minor is also binding on the minor. 89. In Compendium on Interpretation of the Laws of the People's Republic of China (China Yen Xi Press, 1996 Ed., p.138), there is an analysis on 'Naturalized and acquired of one's own free will' which says as follows:
90. Similar views on the Chinese Nationality Law are also shared in General Explanation of the Laws of the People's Republic of China (Jilin People's Press, 1993 Ed., p.841):
91. In Course of Study on Entry- Exit Administration compiled by the Political Department of the Public Security Bureau, the following views on the acquisition of foreign nationality of one's own free will are expressed at p.44: -
92. The above information shows that under the Chinese Nationality Law, parents or guardians have the right to deal with nationality matters on behalf of minors. Where a minor, having followed his parents or through arrangement of his parents, has acquired foreign nationality, he shall be deemed to have been naturalized as a foreign national or acquired foreign nationality of his own free will. 93. According to information provided by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Hong Kong, a child will not automatically acquire German nationality by reason of his parents' naturalization. Application for naturalization must be made by an applicant of his own free wish and will. Where an applicant is under 16, the application must be made by his legal guardian (in general, his parents), and the declaration made by his parents in application is binding on the applicant. 94. Mr. Pun has criticized the Director and the Appeal Board for having relied on the information provided by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in determining whether or not Yiu Hon has been naturalized or acquired German nationality of his own free will. He strongly argues that this issue should be determined according to the Chinese Nationality Law. 95. I do not agree with his argument. Whether or not Yiu Hon has been naturalized as a German or acquired German nationality of his own free will is one of the facts of the case and that took place in Germany. Whether or not the case of Yiu Hon constitutes naturalization into and acquisition of German nationality under German law and regulations is certainly something relevant to the matter in question. It is reasonable and proper for the Director to have consulted the opinion of the relevant authority and taken account of the opinion in making the decision. 96. Besides, the Director is certainly entitled to make enquiries with relevant authorities so as to assist him in making a proper decision. In the course of making enquiries, the general rules of evidence do not apply since the Director is not dealing with a trial in court. 97. Unless the approach taken by the Director in making the decision is totally unreasonable, absurd or no reasonable administration would have taken such an approach, the court has no power to interfere with the decision of the Director in the proceedings of judicial review. 98. In the present case, the Director had already taken account of all relevant factors, including the Chinese Nationality Law and the information provided by the Consulate General of the Federal Republic of Germany in Hong Kong. 99. The Director had decided that the case of Yiu Hon constituted naturalization into or acquisition of foreign nationality under the Chinese Nationality Law. The decision is reasonable and was carefully made having taken account of all relevant circumstances. The Director is entitled to come to the decision and the Appeal Board should not be subject to criticism in affirming it. 100. Mr. Pun has further pointed out that the Director should not have recognized the status of the parents of Yiu Hon as Chinese nationals whilst denying the same to Yiu Hon. 101. I am not prepared to decide whether or not the parents of Yiu Hon have fulfilled the conditions required of a Chinese national as it has no direct relevance to the matter that I have to decide. 102. The parents of Yiu Hon have already been naturalized as Germans and have acquired German nationality of their own free will. That being the case, they have already lost their Chinese nationality and ceased to be Chinese nationals under the Chinese Nationality Law if they choose to settle in Germany. 103. Whether or not they have returned to Hong Kong and restored their Chinese nationality by reason of not having made declaration to the Immigration Department for change of nationality and not having been approved of it is, indeed, not a matter that I have to decide. When necessary, the court would certainly make an appropriate decision according to the relevant information provided. 104. Yiu Hon, however, cannot rely on the case of his parents to strengthen his application so as to enable him to obtain the rights not conferred on him by law. 105. I have carefully considered the case of Yiu Hon. He was born in Germany and is throughout settled in Germany without any breaks. He has also acquired German nationality. In the circumstances, Yiu Hon ceases to have Chinese nationality under the Chinese Nationality Law and is not a Chinese national. Accordingly, he is not entitled to have a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport issued to him. Nor does the Director have the power to lawfully issue to him a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport. 106. When Madam Cheng Oi Kwan made the application for a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport for Yiu Hon, she declared that Yiu Hon is a Chinese citizen. The declaration is neither true nor correct. 107. The decision of the Director to cancel the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport of Yiu Hon for the above reasons is correct and lawful. 108. The decision of the Appeal Board to affirm the Director's decision is also proper and reasonable. 109. There is no basis for me to overturn their decisions. 110. The application for judicial review by the applicant must be dismissed. 111. I also make an order that the applicant is to pay the Director costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. 112. The above costs order nisi shall become absolute 14 days after the judgment is handed down. Should either party be dissatisfied with the order, application shall be made to court for a review within 14 days of the handing down of the judgment.
Representation: Mr. Hectar Pun, instructed by Patrick Chan & Co, (assigned by DLA) for the applicant The 1st Respondent, in person (absent) Miss Nancy Kwok, Senior Government Counsel, for the 2nd Respondent Remarks: |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1240/2000