**************************
Following is a question by the Hon Gary Fan and a written reply by the Secretary for Security, Mr Lai Tung-kwok, in the Legislative Council today (June 10):
Question:
It has been reported that nine years ago, a Hong Kong resident arranged for her three-year-old mainland-born grandson to come to Hong Kong on the strength of an Exit-Entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao (commonly known as Two-Way Permit (TWP)) which belonged to another person, and kept hiding the child in Hong Kong since then. That resident has recently brought the child to the Immigration Department (ImmD) and surrendered herself in the hope that the Director of Immigration (the Director) would exercise discretion under the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) to permit the child to stay in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of adults and minors from the Mainland who overstayed in Hong Kong in each year since July 1, 1997; among them, the respective numbers of persons who entered the territory on the strength of TWPs, the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) endorsements and multiple-entry Individual Visit Endorsements (multiple-entry endorsements);
(2) among those persons who entered the territory on the strength of TWPs, IVS endorsements and multiple-entry endorsements and overstayed in Hong Kong since July 1, 1997, of the respective numbers of persons who have been found to be overstaying because they (i) surrendered themselves to ImmD and (ii) were under investigation by ImmD, and the respective numbers of persons who (iii) have been repatriated to the Mainland by ImmD, (iv) have been permitted to stay in Hong Kong on the discretion by the Director, and (v) are still holding only recognisance forms (commonly known as "going-out passes") issued by ImmD (with a tabulated breakdown by year, type of travel documents held and whether the person concerned is adult);
(3) of the number of cases in which applications for admission to school from minors holding going-out passes were supported by ImmD in the past five years, as well as the general criteria based on which ImmD considered such cases;
(4) of the numbers of overstayers who were permitted to stay in Hong Kong on the discretion of the Director in the past five years, with a breakdown by (i) their place of origin and (ii) the Director's reason for granting such permission;
(5) of the criteria that the Director must consider in exercising his discretion (particularly on humanitarian grounds) to permit overstayers to stay in Hong Kong; and
(6) of the existing mechanism for ImmD to conduct proactive investigation into suspected cases of overstaying?
Reply:
President,
The majority of the overstayed visitors did not do so on purpose. They might have inadvertently failed to pay attention to their limit of stay, or because of emergency, medical emergency or sudden change in itinerary, could not leave Hong Kong as scheduled or apply for extension of stay. Under such circumstances, if the Immigration Department (ImmD) accepts the explanation upon investigation, the person will be allowed to leave Hong Kong after completing the extension of stay formalities. No further arrest or prosecution actions will be taken.
Our reply to the Hon Fan's questions is as follows.
(1) and (2) The number of cases of overstayers holding Exit-Entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao handled by the ImmD since January 1997 is at Annex. As at May 2015, the ImmD granted recognisance to 265 Mainland residents, including 236 adults and 29 minors.
The ImmD does not maintain the other breakdown statistics mentioned in the questions.
(3) Under existing arrangements, children whose stay in Hong Kong is illegal but are granted recognisance as an alternative to detention must apply to the Education Bureau (EDB) if they wish to attend a secondary or a primary school. The EDB will handle such applications in consultation with the ImmD. The ImmD will provide comments to the EDB having regard to all relevant circumstances of each individual case, including whether the person concerned will be removed from Hong Kong within a short period. Having consulted the ImmD, the EDB will decide on the application and make arrangements as appropriate.
From 2010 to May 2015, the ImmD expressed no objection to the EDB in respect of 32 applications from Mainland minors on recognisance to attend school.
(4) and (5) The Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) states that the Director of Immigration (the Director) may exercise discretion to allow certain individuals to stay in Hong Kong. In exercising his discretion under the Ordinance, the Director must take into account the primary object of the Ordinance, which is to maintain effective immigration control. Exceptions to the established policies must be supported by unique and sufficient justifications. The Director will carefully consider the circumstances of individual cases, such as, whether the case is justified on sufficiently strong and convincing humanitarian or compassionate grounds, and make a decision having regard to prevailing public interest.
From 2010 to May 2015, the Director exercised discretion to allow 74 persons to stay in Hong Kong. Since the circumstances of each case are different, the Director, in exercising his discretion, will consider individual cases having regard to all relevant circumstances. It is therefore inappropriate to categorise the cases by making straight-forward references to the reason(s) for such applications. The ImmD does not maintain breakdown statistics of the places of origin of these persons.
(6) The ImmD has established procedures to investigate cases on overstaying. The ImmD will gather intelligence and take referrals from different channels, and will flexibly deploy manpower for follow up and investigation.
Ends/Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Issued at HKT 16:35
NNNN