Mui Yen Yuk, Leung Shiu Chung, Kei Yin Fei, appeal judges of the High Court, opposed against an appeal filed by more than 5000 abode-seekers yesterday. They pointed out that the abode-seekers did not fullfil the requirements of "Lenient policy" introduced by the government and thus lose a right of abode under the reinterpretation of the Basic Law by the National People Congress Standing Committee. Some of abode-seekers said that they would file an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. During this period, the Security Bureau promised not to repatriate those overstayers back to the mainland.

The original case consists of three independent lawsuits and 27 representative lawsuits, all of which account for 5342 mainland children whose parents are Hong Kong residents. The litigants requested the Court to cancel the decree of repartriation ordered by the Director of the Immigration Department, recognize their status as a beneficinary of the"1.19" court verdict or the government's "Lenient policy" and allow a testing of their identity in Hong Kong. However their requests were unanimously rejected by the court on the June of 30 this year.

Keith Yin Fai, responsible for writing a final statement, pointed out that the reinterpretation of the basic law by the National People's Congress Standing Committee has overruled the "1.29" verdict and thus changed the legal terms of the right of abode for overstayers. Now there are three types of abode-seekers who can obtain a right of abode in Hong Kong. Firstly, 85 litigants in the ruling of "1.29"; secondly, abode-seekers who has reached an agreement with the Director of the Immigration Deparment; Thirdly, overstayers who fullfil the requirements of the Lenient Policy introduced after the Standing Committee's reinterpreation of the basic law.

More than 5000 litigants were not acknowledged by the director of the Immigration Department as a beneficiary of the "Lenient policy"; also they did not belong to the first and second groups of abodeseekers. So Keith Yin Fei decided to maintain the original paintiff verdict which denied a right of abode for the litigants in accordance with the reinterpreation of the basic law. Mui Yen Yuk and Leung Shiu Chung both agreed on the final decision of Keith Yin Fei.

To make a verdict report more accessable to litigrants, the Court summarized the 150 pages of the report into two pages and handed into litigrants outside the Court. In the summary, the three judges pointed out that we understood that the repeal of the appeal would dash the hopes of mainland migrants for seeking a right of abole in Hong Kong, but according to the current laws, we could not meet their hopes.

Bell Karly, a lawyer representing some of abodeseekers, expressed dissatisfaction towards the verdict. Before they lodge an appeal against the current verdict, they have to review the verdict in details. Some of abodeseekers has stated that they must appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. To their dispointment, some burnt the verdict summary on the scene.

Tong Kin Ming, Deputy Secretary of Security Bureau, was pleased to see thet the verdict can give a clear singal to abodeseekers- those who do not fullfil the requirements of the "Lenient policy" must go back their mainland home. He promised that during the period of appealing, the 5000 abode seekers would not be repatriated by force.

The article is translated from the original one published in Hong Kong Economic Journal