Para 2:
Para 3:
Para 4:
As Vivienne Dews pointed out in her letter of 1 August, Mr Au Yeung may well have attracted attention because his passport shows a pattern of short visits to the United Kingdom once every two years.
In these circumstances, the Immigration Officer would be entirely justified in seeking to ascertain whether the passenger was simply paying another short visit or was on this occasion intending to settle in the UK.
Hong Kong argue that the amendment
that the amendment to paragraph 58 introduces a new requirement, namely the need to establish that the purpose of the visit is for settlement, and is therefore a change of substance rather than a clarification of existing practice. This reflects a misunderstanding of the previous position, and ignores the judgement of the High Court in ex p. Tolba. All this is discussed at length in Vivienne Dews letter of 1 August and the briefing material enclosed with that letter.
Hong Kong correctly point out that the required intention to
to enter for settlement relates to the passenger's present intentions on the occasion he seeks admission, not to his past activities. I am not sure what point they are trying to make. Mr Au Yeung was admitted as a visitor on 12 June 1990 because on that occasion he sought entry as a visitor.
Mr Au Yeung was granted leave to enter for six months on 12 June 1990. This leave automatically lapsed when he left the United Kingdom on 20 June by virtue of section 3 (4) of the Immigration Act 1971. Mr Au Yeung did not apply for variation of his leave during his short stay in the United Kingdom and he cannot now do so, as that leave is no longer extant. If Mr Au Yeung had applied for variation of his leave, that application would itself have lapsed when he left the United Kingdom on 20 June.
It is open to Mr Au Yeung to apply for an entry clearance as a returning resident. However, such an application would stand no chance of success. Mr Au Yeung cannot now qualify for admission as a returning resident under paragraph 58 of the rules, even if he wished to resume permanent residence
permanent residence in the United Kingdom, as he did not have indefinite leave when he last left. Nor would he qualify for admission as a returning resident
resident under paragraph 59, as he has clearly not lived in the United Kingdom for most of his life.
I enclose for your information only a copy of the instruction which has been issued to Immigration Officers. Like all instructions to Immigration Officers, this is an internal document which it is not our practice to make available publicly. It should not therefore be shown to Hong Kong. You can of course assure Hong Kong that the terms of the assurance given by the