XN000022-1989-04-19 — Page 4

3

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1989

HE SAID THAT WHEN MR CHEN ARRIVED IN HONG KONG ON APRIL 7, HE PRESENTED HIMSELF WITH HIS CHINESE PASSPORT AND A

ARRIVAL COMPLETED

то CARD

STAY AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER AND ASKED FOR PERMISSION TO HONG KONG FOR FOUR DAYS TO AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF HIS WIFE.

IN

"HOWEVER, BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED VISA FOR HONG HE KONG,

OF WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO LAND UNDER SECTION 11(1)

THE

IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE, MR BARNES SAID.

"

"AS IN NORMAL IN SUCH CASES HE WAS THEREFORE HOUSED IN THE

RECEPTION IMMIGRATION

CENTRE AT THE AIRPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION

FOR 18(1) OF THE SAME ORDINANCE WHILE ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE

THE FIRST HIM TO LEAVE HONG KONG FOR A COUNTRY OF HIS OWN CHOICE BY AVAILABLE FLIGHT.

"THIS IS A MATTER OF STANDARD PROCEDURE, HE ADDED.

SITTING

AND

MR BARNES NOTED THAT THE RECEPTION CENTRE CONSISTED OF A COMMON

ROOM AND INDIVIDUAL BEDROOMS IN SEPERATE WINGS FOR MALES FEMALES, WITH SEPERATE TOILET AND WASHING FACILITIES.

PERSONS TEMPORARILY DETAINED THERE WERE PROVIDED WITH THREE THEY MEALS A DAY AND WERE FREE TO MOVE ABOUT IN THE COMMON AREA WHERE COULD TAKE MEALS AND WATCH TELEVISION.

THEY MIGHT TELEPHONE THEIR RELATIVES. FRIENDS, CONSUL AND MIGHT ALSO ASK TO SEE THEM IF THEY SO WISHED.

SOLICITORS

OR

A NOTICE TO THAT EFFECT WAS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED.

LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS AND TELEGRAMS WERE ALSO ALLOWED BUT HAD TO BE PAID FOR.

"IN MR CHEN'S CASE HE ASKED FIRST TO TELEPHONE A FRIEND IN THE UNITED

AND SOME TIME LATER SAID HE WISHED STATES

HIS WIFE," MR BARNES SAID,

TO TELEPHONE

"BY THIS TIME IMMIGRATION STAFF HAD ALREADY PUT ARRANGEMENTS IN HAND FOR MR CHEN TO CALL HIS WIFE IN PEKING.

"SINCE HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH MONEY WITH HIM ARRANGEMENTS WERE FOR MADE FOR HIS FRIEND IN AMERICA TO BE CONTACTED BY THE AIRLINE AND THE CALL TO HIS WIFE IN PEKING TO BE AT HONG KONG GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, HE SAID.

Ц

MI

"MEANWHILE, ARRANGEMENTS WERE MADE FOR MR CHEN TO COMPLETE JOURNEY TO THE US, HE ADDED.

HIS

NOT

MR BARNES SAID THAT ALTHOUGH MR CHEN HELD AN AIR TICKET

WHICH ONE FOR USE UP TO MAY 2, 1989, IT WAS A NON-ENDORSEABLE

VALID FOR TRAVEL WITH ANY AIRLINE

THAN OTHER

THE

SPECIFIED ON THE TICKET.

VALID

WAS

ONE

/AS A