As Hong Kong SAR (Hong Kong) is a special administrative region of China, the region does not have its own nationality law. Instead, Hong Kong operates under the concept of “One Country, Two Systems”, enshrined under the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Basic Law). In accordance with Article 18 and Annex III of the Basic Law, various national laws of China would apply to Hong Kong. China’s Nationality Law has applied to Hong Kong since 1997. As a result, children born in Hong Kong gain nationality through the same jus sanguinis structure, with children born within the territory to at least one Chinese parent gaining citizenship. As long as a citizen parent of a child born outside the territory has not settled abroad and the child has not gained another nationality at birth, the child will be a citizen. China’s citizenship legislation does not provide a definition of a stateless person.

Instead, Hong Kong operates under the concept of “One Country, Two Systems”, enshrined under the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Basic Law).

Statutory Framework

The entitlement to enjoy the right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and acquire permanent resident status is governed by Article 24(2) of the Basic Law and given statutory effect through Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). Paragraph 2(a) to (f) of Schedule 1 sets out the exhaustive categories of persons who are permanent residents of the HKSAR and enjoy the right of abode.

These categories include: (a) Chinese citizens born in Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the HKSAR; (b) Chinese citizens who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years before or after the establishment of the HKSAR; (c) persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong before or after the establishment of the HKSAR to a parent who, at the time of birth, was a Chinese citizen falling within category (a) or (b); 

For a child born outside Hong Kong to a Hong Kong permanent resident, two principal statutory routes determine eligibility, namely the Chinese route under paragraphs 2(a) to (c) of Schedule 1 and the non-Chinese route under paragraph 2(d). These two routes impose materially different substantive requirements.

Nationality Interpretation and the Chinese Route

  • Interpretation of Chinese Nationality

Under the HKSAR legal framework, a Chinese citizen is a person who holds Chinese nationality under the PRC Nationality Law. Hong Kong residents of Chinese descent who are born in Hong Kong or China, or meet the requirements of the Nationality Law, are considered Chinese citizens even if they hold foreign passports. They may declare a change of nationality through the HKSAR Immigration Department, and upon approval, they lose Chinese citizenship status, consular protection from China, and eligibility for a HKSAR passport. Those with foreign right of abode who return to settle in Hong Kong remain Chinese citizens unless they have successfully changed their nationality.

  • Eligibility under Paragraph 2(c)

For children of Hong Kong permanent residents born outside Hong Kong, the main statutory route is paragraph 2(c) of Schedule 1 (the descent route). This route removes the requirement of seven years’ residence in Hong Kong but applies only where the child was a Chinese national at birth and the parent was already a Chinese citizen with Hong Kong permanent resident status under paragraph 2(a) or 2(b) at the time of birth.

Under Article 5 of the PRC Nationality Law, a child born abroad to a Chinese national parent generally acquires Chinese nationality unless the parent had settled abroad and the child acquired foreign nationality at birth. Where the parent is an overseas resident, such as a holder of a United States Green Card or United Kingdom Indefinite Leave to Remain, and the child obtains foreign nationality at birth, the child is not regarded as a Chinese national for Article 5 purposes. Therefore, the child cannot rely on paragraph 2(c) even if the parent remains a Chinese citizen and Hong Kong permanent resident.

Since paragraph 2(c) focuses on the circumstances at the time of birth, later changes in the parent’s immigration status or renunciation of the child’s foreign nationality cannot cure the lack of Chinese nationality at birth. The issue is fact-sensitive and requires specialist advice within the PRC.

Birth location therefore affects eligibility. A child born overseas after the parent has settled abroad will generally be unable to acquire Chinese nationality at birth, preventing reliance on paragraph 2(c). A child born in Hong Kong may instead qualify under paragraph 2(a), or paragraph 2(e) where the parent holds permanent resident status under paragraph 2(d).

The Non-Chinese Route

Where paragraph 2(c) is unavailable, the child cannot obtain Hong Kong permanent resident status through descent and must qualify independently under paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 1. The child must enter Hong Kong with a valid travel document, ordinarily reside in Hong Kong for a continuous period of at least seven years, and take Hong Kong as his or her permanent place of residence.

The ordinary residence requirement is strictly applied. Under paragraph 1(4)(b) of Schedule 1, the seven-year period must be immediately before the application. In Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration [2001] HKCU 662, the court confirmed that separate periods of residence cannot be aggregated.

Certain periods are excluded under section 2(4) of the Immigration Ordinance. In Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration(2013) 16 HKCFAR 45, the Court of Final Appeal held that ordinary residence must be interpreted according to its statutory purpose, with immigration status being relevant. Temporary absences do not necessarily interrupt continuity under section 2(6), depending on their reason, duration and frequency.

Unlawful stay cannot be counted. In Nowodzelski v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 295, the Court of Appeal held that residence after expiry of a limit of stay does not constitute ordinary residence. This approach was followed in Li Mengzhi v Commissioner of Registration [2024] 2 HKC 330 and on appeal [2026] HKCA 246.

The applicant must also satisfy the permanence requirement. In Prem Singh v Director of Immigration (2003) 6 HKCFAR 26, the court held that the applicant must show Hong Kong is their long-term home through objective evidence. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 lists relevant factors, including whether the applicant normally lives in Hong Kong, whether close family members reside there, whether the applicant has sufficient means of support, and whether tax has been paid in Hong Kong. In Gutierrez Joseph James v Commissioner of Registration [2015] 1 HKC, permanence was held to require a holistic assessment of subjective intention and objective circumstances.

Procedural Framework for Application and Issuance of Identity Documents

For a child born outside Hong Kong claiming the right of abode under paragraph 2(c) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance, the parent or legal guardian must first apply for verification of the child’s eligibility as a Hong Kong permanent resident under the Registration of Persons Ordinance. Upon approval by the Hong Kong Immigration Department, the child may apply for relevant identity documents, including a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card (PIC) and HKSAR passport.

Children under 11 years old are generally not required to register for an identity card. However, where a HKSAR passport is required, the parent or legal guardian should apply for the Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card together with the passport application. A child is eligible for a Permanent Identity Card and HKSAR passport if he or she is a Chinese citizen with the right of abode in the HKSAR.

The parent or legal guardian must submit Form ROP 3 together with the HKSAR passport application. The Permanent Identity Card application will be processed together with the passport application, and no separate visit to the Registration of Persons Office is required. If the child previously held a Permanent Identity Card which has been lost, damaged, destroyed or defaced, the child must attend the Registration of Persons Office with the parent or legal guardian to apply for a replacement before applying for a HKSAR passport.

The application must include a recent photograph, proof of the child’s right of abode (unless born in Hong Kong), such as a travel document endorsed with “Holder’s eligibility for a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card verified” or a verification letter issued by the Right of Abode Section of the Immigration Department, the accompanying parent or legal guardian’s identity document, and proof of the relationship between them. The Immigration Department may request additional documents or information where necessary.

References:

Legal Articles

LIFELONG WELFARE AS THE CENTRALCONSIDERATION

LIFELONG WELFARE AS THE CENTRALCONSIDERATION

The applicants, a husband and wife, turned to international surrogacy in Russia after a long and arduous 16-year journey to…
LIMITS OF WELFARE (SURROGATE CONSENT)

LIMITS OF WELFARE (SURROGATE CONSENT)

The commissioning parents, A and B, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India using B’s sperm and a donor egg,.…
MODERN WELFARE AND SAFEGUARDING ANALYSIS

MODERN WELFARE AND SAFEGUARDING ANALYSIS

The applicants, a male same-sex couple (A and B) living in the UK, sought to start a family through a…
PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

The commissioning parents, a married couple domiciled in the United Kingdom, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India. The child,…
REVOCATION OF ADOPTION

REVOCATION OF ADOPTION

The applicants, X and Y, were a same-sex couple who sought fertility treatment at St Bartholomew’s Hospital (the clinic). X…
DOCTRINE OF RECTIFICATION

DOCTRINE OF RECTIFICATION

The case involved a same-sex couple, X and Y, who underwent IVF treatment at a licensed clinic. Y, the gestational…
RECTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTATION

RECTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTATION

The case involved eight separate applications (Cases P through X) heard together due to their similar legal issues regarding assisted…
ADMINISTRATIVE INCOMPETENCE AND INTENT

ADMINISTRATIVE INCOMPETENCE AND INTENT

The litigation arose following an audit by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), which revealed that 46% of licensed…
PARENTAL AGE AND FUTURE PLANNING

PARENTAL AGE AND FUTURE PLANNING

The applicants, Mr and Mrs K, were both 72 years old and retired at the time of their application. Following…
LEGAL PARENTHOOD AND GENDER

LEGAL PARENTHOOD AND GENDER

The claimant, TT (Freddy McConnell), was registered as female at birth but transitioned to live in the male gender,. In…
ETHICS AND SAFEGUARDING GUIDANCE

ETHICS AND SAFEGUARDING GUIDANCE

The applicants, A and B, are a same-sex couple living in the UK who sought to start a family through…
JUDICAL REASONING AND ANALYSIS

JUDICAL REASONING AND ANALYSIS

The case originated from care proceedings brought by a local authority concerning five children (A, B, C, D, and E)…
NON-DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS)

NON-DISCRIMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS)

The case concerned a child, Z, who was the biological son of the applicant father. Z was conceived using the…
PROTRACTED DELAY

PROTRACTED DELAY

The applicants, D (the biological father) and G (the commissioning mother), entered into gestational surrogacy agreements in California in 2006…
INELIGIBILITY OF SINGLE APPLICANTS

INELIGIBILITY OF SINGLE APPLICANTS

The case concerned a child, Z, born in 2014 in Minnesota, USA, via a surrogacy arrangement. The child was conceived…
DISPENSING WITH CONSENT

DISPENSING WITH CONSENT

The applicants, AB and CD, are a British same-sex couple who entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India in 2011.…
STATUTORY TIME LIMITS

STATUTORY TIME LIMITS

A British married couple, B and P, entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India using the father’s sperm and a…
DOMICILE

DOMICILE

The applicants were a same-sex couple: A, born in Poland, and B, born in the United States. After living together…
SCRUTINY OF COMMERCIAL AGENCY FEES

SCRUTINY OF COMMERCIAL AGENCY FEES

The case concerned twin children born in California in July 2012 to two British men, MP and AH,,. The children…
AVOIDANCE OF A "LEGAL VACUUM"

AVOIDANCE OF A "LEGAL VACUUM"

The applicants, a husband and wife, had endured a 16-year journey to become parents, involving 15 unsuccessful IVF cycles across…
PROPORTIONALITY AND GOOD FAITH

PROPORTIONALITY AND GOOD FAITH

The case involved a British couple, Mr. and Mrs. A, who, after years of unsuccessful fertility treatments in the UK…
WELFARE PARAMOUNTCY

WELFARE PARAMOUNTCY

The applicants, a married couple domiciled in England, entered into a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Illinois, USA. The agreement was…
EXTRATERRITORIALITY

EXTRATERRITORIALITY

The applicants, a married couple domiciled in England, entered into a surrogacy agreement in Ukraine. The surrogate, a married Ukrainian…
error: Content is protected !!
Welcome to Edward Ng & Partners! Click to consult with our lawyer! 欢迎来到爱德华·黄律师事务所,点击联系我们的律师
//
Lawyer Edward Ng 黄志威律师 황지위 변호사
Divorce, Child Adoption, Will, Probate & LA, CIPAA, Civil & Corporate Litigation, Debt Recovery, Defamation, Tax Law.
Consult Lawyer 咨询律师 상담문의