Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration

Last updated
Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration
Court Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong
Full case nameFateh Muhammad v. Commissioner of Registration and Registration of Persons Tribunal
Decided2001-07-20
Citation[2001] 2 HKLRD 659
Transcript Full text of judgment
Case history
Prior actionsCommissioner for Registration v. Registration of Persons Tribunal and Fateh Muhammad, HCAL40/1999
Commissioner for Registration v. Registration of Persons Tribunal and Fateh Muhammad, CACV272/1999
Court membership
Judges sitting Andrew Li, Kemal Bokhary, Patrick Chan, Gerald Nazareth, and Anthony Mason

Fateh Muhammad v. Commissioner of Registration and Registration of Persons Tribunal was a 2001 case in the Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong, by a Pakistani migrant seeking the right of abode in Hong Kong. The case concerned provisions of the Immigration Ordinance requiring that a non-Chinese national's seven years of "ordinary residence" qualifying him to apply for permanent residence immediately precede his application. The unanimous opinion, written by Justice Kemal Bokhary (himself of Pakistani background), ruled that those provisions were not inconsistent with the Hong Kong Basic Law. The ruling in the case temporarily disqualified the appellant from applying for permanent residency, though he was expected to qualify again a few years later.

Contents

Background

Fateh Muhammad was a Pakistani migrant who had resided in Hong Kong since 1962. [1] He was sentenced to four years in prison in 1993 for conspiracy to utter forged banknotes. The Secretary for Security ordered that he be deported from Hong Kong upon completion of his sentence. Muhammad applied to the Director of Immigration for verification of eligibility for a Hong Kong permanent identity card; effectively, he sought to assert that he had the right of abode in Hong Kong and thus under Immigration Ordinance 2A(1)(c) could not be deported. The Director refused verification on the grounds that Muhammad had not been "ordinarily resident" in Hong Kong for the seven years immediately preceding his application for verification, because under IO 2(4)(b) time spent in prison is not considered "ordinarily resident". [2]

Tribunal and lower courts

Muhammad appealed the Director's decision to the Registration of Persons Tribunal on 4 August 1998, which on 29 January 1999 allowed his appeal, ordering that a permanent identity card be issued to him. In doing so, it stated that IO Schedule 1 Paragraph 1(4)(b), which imposed the requirement that the seven years of ordinary residence qualifying a non-Chinese national to apply for permanent residence immediately precede the application, contravened the Basic Law and should be struck down. [Note 1] The Director withdrew the deportation order on 26 February 1999. [3]

However, the Director also appealed to the Court of First Instance. Justice Brian Keith found the impugned provisions to be consistent with the Basic Law and made an order of certiorari quashing the Registration of Persons Tribunal's order that Muhammad be issued with a permanent identity card. [2] Muhammad appealed to the Court of Appeal. Justices Simon Mayo, Robert Ribeiro, and Anthony Rogers on 19 April 2000 upheld the CFI's ruling. [2] The CA applied a purposive approach to interpreting BL 24(2)(4), and concluded that the three requirements therein for a non-Chinese national to become a permanent resident (entered Hong Kong with a valid travel document; has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 7 years; and has taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence) should be completed concurrently. [2]

Court of Final Appeal

Muhammad appealed again to the Court of Final Appeal. His case was one of three CFA cases relating to the right of abode that year said to form part of a "constitutional crisis" in Hong Kong, the other two being Director of Immigration v. Chong Fung Yuen (which ruled that Chinese nationals born in Hong Kong were entitled to the right of abode regardless of the Hong Kong immigration status of their parents), and Tam Nga Yin v. Director of Immigration (which ruled that mainland-born children adopted by Hong Kong parents did not thus gain the right of abode). [4] The CFA delayed its ruling on Chong, which had been heard in March, until Fateh Muhammad and Tam Nga Yin had also been heard. [5]

On 20 July 2001 the CFA also ruled against Muhammad. [2] The CFA upheld the CA's observation that were the Basic Law's requirements for permanent residence is required to be satisfied concurrently, the law did not intend to confer the right of abode on people with tenuous connections to Hong Kong. The CFA also rejected the argument that the Immigration Ordinance's imposition of additional requirements on the timing of the period of seven years' "ordinary residence" was inconsistent with the Basic Law, instead stating that the Basic Law was silent on the matter and that it was "legitimate for the Ordinance to fill the gap". [1]

Reactions

Counsel for Muhammad attempted to argue that the relevant provisions of the Immigration Ordinance discriminated against people not of Chinese origin; this was unsuccessful. [6] The Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor in a press release accused the court of racism in interpreting the Basic Law more restrictively in Muhammad as compared to Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration . [7] Acting Secretary for Security Timothy Tong was quoted as stating that he welcomed the ruling. [8]

Notes

  1. ↑ The Tribunal did not address IO 2(4)(b); the Court of First Instance in Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration would strike down part of IO 2(4) as inconsistent with the Basic Law in 2011. That decision is under appeal.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong Basic Law</span> Organic law of the Hong Kong SAR

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is a national law of China that serves as the organic law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Comprising nine chapters, 160 articles and three annexes, the Basic Law was composed to implement Annex I of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Right of abode in Hong Kong entitles a person to live and work in the territory without any restrictions or conditions of stay. Someone who has that right is a Hong Kong permanent resident. Foreign nationals may acquire the right of abode after meeting a seven-year residency requirement and are given most rights usually associated with citizenship, including the right to vote in regional elections. However, they are not entitled to hold territorial passports or stand for office in some Legislative Council constituencies, unless they also naturalise as Chinese citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)</span> Final appellate court of Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is the final appellate court of Hong Kong. It was established on 1 July 1997, upon the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the highest judicial institution under Hong Kong law. As defined in Articles 19 and 85 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the Court of Final Appeal "exercises judicial power in the Region independently and free from any interference." The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Rules set out the detailed functions and procedures of the court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Hong Kong</span> Law courts in the special administrative region of China

The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the judicial branch of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it exercises the judicial power of the Region and is independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The courts in Hong Kong hear and adjudicate all prosecutions and civil disputes, including all public and private law matters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Hong Kong</span> Judicial system of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and case law made by decisions of the courts of Hong Kong.

The right of abode is an individual's freedom from immigration control in a particular country. A person who has the right of abode in a country does not need permission from the government to enter the country and can live and work there without restriction, and is immune from removal and deportation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Belonger status</span> Legal status recognizing close ties to a specific territory

Belonger status is a legal classification normally associated with British Overseas Territories. It refers to people who have close ties to a specific territory, normally by birth or ancestry. The requirements for belonger status, and the rights that it confers, vary from territory to territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court (Hong Kong)</span> Superior court of record with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction in Hong Kong

The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a part of the legal system of Hong Kong. It consists of the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance; it deals with criminal and civil cases which have risen beyond the lower courts. It is a superior court of record of unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction. It was named the Supreme Court before 1997. Though previously named the Supreme Court, this Court has long been the local equivalent to the Senior Courts of England and Wales and has never been vested with the power of final adjudication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Hong Kong</span>

Human rights protection is enshrined in the Basic Law and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts. This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the National Security Law, even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of British nationality law</span> History of United Kingdom citizenship and related concepts

This article concerns the history of British nationality law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visa policy of Hong Kong</span> Policy on permits required to enter Hong Kong

The visa policy of Hong Kong deals with the requirements in which a foreign national wishing to enter Hong Kong through one of the 15 immigration control points must meet to obtain an entry permit or Visa, which depending on the traveller's nationality, may be required to travel to, enter, and remain in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Visitors from over 145 countries are permitted without Visa entry for periods ranging from 7 to 180 days, to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for tourism or certain business-related activities. All visitors must hold a passport valid for more than 1 month.

The Hong Kong Basic Law classifies residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as either permanent residents or non-permanent residents. Hong Kong residents have rights under the Basic Law including freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of religious belief.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Hong Kong</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Hong Kong may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents.

<i>Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen</i>

Director of Immigration v. Chong Fung Yuen was a 2001 case in Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal. Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, affirmed lower court decisions that Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong enjoyed the right of abode regardless of the Hong Kong immigration status of their parents. The case touched on issues of interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law, both common law interpretation by courts in Hong Kong as well as interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China. Professor Albert Chen of the University of Hong Kong describes the case as part of a "period of elaboration and consolidation of the regime of rights in the Hong Kong SAR", lasting roughly from 2000 to 2002.

Vallejos and Domingo v. Commissioner of Registration was a court case against the government of Hong Kong by two foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) seeking permanent residence and the right of abode in Hong Kong. Because of its subject matter it was commonly referred to in the media as the FDHs' right of abode case (外傭居港權案). Evangeline Vallejos and Daniel Domingo were two of five applicants who in various groups filed three right of abode lawsuits in 2010; the ruling in Vallejos' case was expected to be a precedent for the other two.

Lau Kong Yung v. Director of Immigration was a 1999 right of abode case in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal following closely on the heels of the landmark Ng Ka Ling v. Director of Immigration decision earlier that year. After Ng and the two prior actions in Lau, but before the case came before the CFA, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) of the People's Republic of China issued an interpretation of the Basic Law which affected the rights of Lau and his fellow applicants. Lau thus became the first case in which the CFA had to take into account an NPCSC interpretation in applying the Basic Law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance</span> Ordinance of Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (HKBORO), often referred to as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is Chapter 383 of the Laws of Hong Kong, which transposed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so that it is incorporated into Hong Kong law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration Ordinance</span>

The Immigration Ordinance is Chapter 115 of Hong Kong's Ordinances. It regulates the immigration issues of Hong Kong, such as Right of Abode, immigration control and enforcement of illegal immigration by Immigration Department.

Comilang v. Commissioner of Registration was a 2011–2013 case against the Hong Kong Immigration Department by a former foreign domestic helper who is the sole custodial parent of a child who has permanent residence status in Hong Kong. Comilang sought to challenge her own removal from Hong Kong on, inter alia, the grounds that it would effectively force Ahmed to leave Hong Kong and thus deprive her of all of the benefits she should enjoy as a Hong Kong permanent resident. The ruling against the applicants in the Court of First Instance had wider legal significance, as it established that neither the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights nor the Convention on the Rights of the Child are incorporated in Hong Kong law.

<i>Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration</i> Joint appeal of three cases

Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents had acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.

References

  1. 1 2 "Hong Kong SAR High Court -- Court of Appeal: Commissioner of Registration v. Registration of Persons Tribunal and Fateh Muhammad (permanent residency application by prisoner)", International Law In Brief, American Society of International Law, 2000-07-15, archived from the original on 2012-03-31, retrieved 2011-10-06
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 "Judgment Update: Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration & The Registration of Persons Tribunal" (PDF), Basic Law Bulletin (2): 21–23, 2001, retrieved 2011-10-06
  3. ↑ Commissioner for Registration v. Registration of Persons Tribunal and Fateh Muhammad, HCAL40/1999 , at para. 36
  4. ↑ Fokstuen, Anne R. (2003), "The 'Right of Abode' Cases: Hong Kong's Constitutional Crisis", Hastings International Comparative Law Review, 26 (265), retrieved 2011-10-04
  5. ↑ "Introductory Commentary" (PDF), Basic Law Bulletin (2), 2001, retrieved 2011-10-04
  6. ↑ Law, Anthony M. W. (December 2004), "Racial Discrimination and the Right to Equality", Hong Kong Lawyer, archived from the original on 2012-04-23, retrieved 2011-10-06
  7. ↑ Muhammad has the wrong blood for permanent residence in Hong Kong, 2000-04-21, retrieved 2011-10-06
  8. ↑ "HK Government Respects Court's Right of Abode Ruling", People's Daily, 2001-07-21, retrieved 2011-10-06
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.