for some time after they move their home elsewhere. Whether they are lucky in obtaining an admission to which strictly they are not entitled is likely to depend on whether it is immediately evident from their passport that they have spent little time here over a long period and on what they say to the immigration officer on arrival. I do not wish to prejudice any report but Mr Au Yeung may well have attracted attention because even a cursory look at his passport now shows clearly that he has only paid short infrequent visits here (and that pattern only becomes evident as time goes by) and he says that he told the immigration officer he was coming for a visit. This would put him well outside the provisions for returning residents and he may well simply have reached the point at which the system noticed how it was being played. It will of course never be possible to say if he might have succeeded for longer if the profile of returning resident policy had not been so high recently; just as we could not know if at a different time or with a different immigration officer he might have been granted indefinite leave. What is clear is that if as he says Mr Au Yeung was not seeking admission as a returning resident and had not been settled here within the last two years he does not come within the Home Secretary's assurance.
Enc.
Yous.
Colin Miller
pp
VIVIENNE DEWS
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.