Chen Yiyi a Minor, By Her Next Friend and Father, Chen Haimeng and Others v. Secretary for Education

On 31 July 2026, Coleman J in the Court of First Instance handed down judgment in HCAL 2434/2025, dismissing the substantive judicial review application brought by 87 dependant visa-holder children against the Secretary for Education. Mr Johnny Ma SC (leading Ms Rosa Lee), instructed by the Department of Justice, acted for the successful Respondent.

The Applicants are children holding dependant visas issued on the strength of their parents' admission under various Migration Schemes, including QMAS, TTPS and Employment Visas. They study international curricula (A-Levels, IB, AP) at Mainland schools and intend to apply for Hong Kong university places in the 2027/28 AY. On 31 July 2025, the Government announced a revised policy requiring such children to have resided in Hong Kong for two years to qualify for subsidised university places, with a one-year transitional arrangement for the 2027/28 cohort (the "One Year Rule"). The Applicants do not challenge the underlying two-year policy. They challenge only the One Year Rule, on grounds of irrationality and discrimination under BL 25 and BOR 22 (§§3-12).

The Court held that:

(1) On the proper construction of the One Year Rule, the "Wide View" prevails over the Applicants' "Narrow View". It was designed to give affected families approximately 13 months to consider their options, namely transferring to Hong Kong, continuing Mainland study, paying non-local fees or going overseas, rather than to ensure realistic compliance with a one-year residence requirement (§§93-94).

(2) The One Year Rule is not irrational. The cohort size, duration and severity of impact differ materially from R (Johnson) v Work and Pensions Secretary [2020] PTSR 1872. Only 4 of the 87 Applicants filed evidence, and crucially, since the proceedings commenced, the Government has re-examined the position and would reach the same conclusion (§§74, 108).

(3) The discrimination claim fails at the threshold. Immigration or visa status is not a protected characteristic under Hong Kong law; residence is not a "suspect" ground; and the Applicants could not coherently identify a comparator group across any of the three pleaded heads (direct, indirect, Thlimmenos) (§§124-128).

(4) Even on justification, the residency requirement pursues a legitimate aim (targeted use of finite public resources), is rationally connected to the mischief of dependants not residing in Hong Kong irrespective of curriculum, and is proportionate (§§140-152).

The substantive application for judicial review is dismissed, with the Secretary's costs to be paid by the Applicants, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two Counsel, on a nisi basis for 14 days (§§159-160).

Why it matters

For practitioners advising dependants of talent-scheme migrants, this judgment confirms the underlying Policy is robust against challenge, and that transitional challenges premised on short notice face a steep uphill task. It also settles that immigration status does not constitute a "core value" protected characteristic in Hong Kong discrimination law, foreclosing equality arguments of the type that may succeed under some overseas frameworks.