TNAG-2205-FCO40-3162-Immigration-policy-changes-to-rules-1990 — Page 63

Immigration and Nationality Department

Lunar House 40 Wellesley Road

Croydon CR9 2BY

Telephone 081-760

(GTN 3822)

John Haque Esq

2507

Hong Kong Department

341/1 HUD SEH

RECEIVED

CISTRY

10 SEP 1990

Foreign and Commonwealth OfficRESK O

Dear John,

HONG KONG:

INDEX

RETURNING RESIDENTS:

PA

MR AU-YEUNG

HOME OFFICE

ind

бестеван

هم :

Your reference Y22295

Our reference TOYAGQ

Date

31 August 1990

Mr Morris

W 4/4

Thank you for your letter of 15 August enclosing a further telegram from Hong Kong about Mr Au-Yeung.

Hong Kong do seem to be making very heavy weather of this case. Vivienne Dews' letter of 1 August enclosed a detailed briefing note and a letter from

from Bob Morris to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association which set out very fully the background to the recent Rules changes and the law and practice on returning residents. If you have not already done so, it might be useful to send this to Hong Kong by way of amplifying your telno 1483.

As regards the particular case, there is very little to add to Vivienne's letter of 1 August and mine of 9 August. It is clear that Mr Au Yeung sought entry as a visitor for 2 weeks only and had no intention of resuming residence in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, as even Hong Kong appear to accept, the Immigration Officer's decision to admit Mr Au Yeung as a visitor and not a returning resident was perfectly correct. Nor would he have had any entitlement to admission as a returning resident prior to the Rules changes in May 1990.

In response to Hong Kong's latest telex I would offer the following comments:

Para 1:

An Immigration Officer at a port of entry is perfectly entitled to ask any passenger who requires leave to enter whatever questions he considers necessary to establish whether they qualify for admission and, if So, on what basis. Mr Au Yeung was asked a few standard questions (not "closely questioned" as Hong Kong originally claimed) which established that he was seeking admission as a visitor for two weeks only, and he was accordingly admitted as a visitor. This does not in any way present a change of practice.

4/9

92