HK appeals against PR ruling favouring maids

HONG KONG: Hong Kong’s government argued against a landmark ruling that could let foreign maids gain permanent residency as it appealed a case that has raised concerns about ethnic discrimination and strains on social services.

In the ruling in September, a lower court judge found that an immigration provision denying foreign maids the right to apply for permanent residency after seven years – as other foreign residents can – was unconstitutional.

The case has divided Hong Kong, with some arguing that barring maids from applying for residency amounts to ethnic discrimination.

Some groups fear the case will result in a massive influx of maids’ family members arriving in Hong Kong, putting a strain on the densely populated city’s social services and health and education systems, but supporters of the maids say those worries are unfounded.

On the first day of a scheduled three-day hearing, government lawyer David Pannick argued yesterday that the court’s ruling was wrong because it places limits on lawmakers’ ability to decide who is eligible to permanently settle in Hong Kong. The judge in Hong Kong’s Court of First Instance had found in favour of Evangeline Banao Vallejos, a Filipino woman who had worked as a maid in Hong Kong since 1986.

Vallejos sought a judicial review after her bid for permanent residency was rejected.

Pannick rejected arguments by Vallejos’ lawyers that denying maids the right to apply for residency undermined the rule of law.

He said the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, was not intended to be a “straitjacket” that prevented lawmakers from having flexibility when setting immigration policies to advance Hong Kong’s interests.

“Our argument is that the concept of ‘ordinary residence’ allows for a measure of discretion by the legislature,” Pannick told a three-judge panel in Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal.

According to immigration provisions, foreign maids in Hong Kong are not considered “ordinarily resident.”

Mark Daly, one of Vallejos’s lawyers, would not comment on the government’s position but said, “We’re quite confident in our arguments.”