Vallejos Evangeline B. v Commissioner of Registration: why foreign domestic helpers do not have the right of abode

Abstract

In deciding whether a foreign domestic helper could acquire the right of abode, (1) the Court of First Instance (CFI) was right to have rejected any reliance on an Immigration Department booklet published in April 1997 as it lacked any probative value in discerning the Sino-British understanding of the term “ordinarily resided” under Art 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law; (2) however, the CFI had misapplied the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) precedent in Chong Fung Yuen when rejecting the 1996 Opinions of the Preparatory Committee in its interpretation of Art 24(2)(4); and (3) the CFI wrongly assumed that, in deciding what constitutes “ordinary residence”, the CFA in Prem Singh had merely required one’s residence to be adopted voluntarily and for a settled purpose.