Visa Policy of Hong Kong - Unconditional Stay

Unconditional Stay

Persons with the "right of abode" or the "right to land" may enter Hong Kong without holding any visa and without having any condition of stay imposed upon them, and may not be subject to a removal order. In addition, no deportation order may be imposed on a person with the right of abode. Possession of one of the following documents is sufficient to demonstrate those rights:

1. Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card
2. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Passport
3. British National (Overseas) passport
4. Hong Kong Certificate of Identity (all of which have expired by 30 June 2007)
5. Hong Kong Re-entry Permit (for entry from the Mainland of China and the region of Macao only)
6. Hong Kong Seaman's Identity Book
7. Hong Kong Document of Identity for Visa Purposes, provided that the document is valid or the holder's limit of stay in Hong Kong has not expired
8. Travel documents stating either Holder's eligibility for Hong Kong permanent identity card verified or The holder of this travel document has the right to land in Hong Kong. (Section 2AAA, Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, Laws of Hong Kong)

A person who is "ordinarily resident" in Hong Kong for seven years is eligible to apply for permanent residency, a status which gives its holder the right of abode. However, the Immigration Ordinance's definition of "ordinarily resident" (Section 2, Subsection 4) excludes persons holding visas for employment as imported workers or for employment as domestic helpers. It is not unusual to find foreign domestic helpers who have worked in Hong Kong for fifteen years; however, regardless of their length of employment, they are ineligible to apply for permanent residency. In 2011, five domestic helpers filed applications in the High Court for judicial review of the relevant portion of the Immigration Ordinance, claiming that it contravenes Article 24 of the Hong Kong Basic Law. In response, the Department of Justice sought to enter into evidence an affidavit claiming that as many as 100,000 domestic helpers could qualify for permanent residency; along with as many as 300,000 family members, the department claimed this would cause significant economic losses due to the requirement to provide housing, welfare, and health services to them. The first case, Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration, was heard on 22 August. Starry Lee (DAB) and tourism functional constituency legislator Paul Tse expressed their opposition, while the Civic Party issued a statement distancing itself from the cases. Justice Johnson Lam issued his decision on 30 September, ruling in favour of Vallejos; the government will appeal.