KWAN
This case is before the Regional Commissioner on certification by the District Director, Los Angeles, who found the applicant, having been firmly resettled in Hong Kong prior to his arrival in the United States, was not eligible for classification as a refugee and denied the application.
The applicant is a 25-year old single male, born in China and has Chinese nationality. He was last admitted to the United States as a second preference immigrant upon presentation of an immigrant visa issued to him in that classification by the American Consulate General in Hong Kong. The visa had been issued upon the receipt by the consulate of an approved second preference visa petition filed in the applicant‘s behalf by his alleged permanent resident father. Subsequent to his admission as an immigrant it was determined that the alleged father was in fact his uncle, and that his true father had never been admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence. As a result of this determination, deportation proceedings were instituted in the applicant‘s case, and in those proceedings the applicant filed the application now before us.
The record, including his sworn affidavit, establishes that in
In his application for classification for refugee status the applicant claims he fled communist China because the communists had put his mother in jail and that he was unwilling to return there because of fear of being killed.
It is recognized that China is a communist country. Even if it were conceded that the applicant had been taken from China by his grandparent to escape communist domination and that, because of fear of persecution, he is unwilling to return thereto, to qualify as a refugee the applicant must also establish that he is still a refugee and that he has not been firmly resettled in another country since being taken from China in 1954. (Rosenberg v. Woo, 402 U.S. 49 (1971); Woo v. Rosenberg, 445 F.2d 277 (C.A. 9, 1971)).
The Hong Kong Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), which came into effect on April 1, 1972, states illegal entry or illegal overstaying prior to that date counts as “ordinary residence,” and that anyone who is an illegal Chinese immigrant who could prove seven years’ continuous “ordinary residence” prior to the above date is a “Chinese resident” of Hong Kong.
The record before us establishes that the applicant resided continuously in Hong Kong for more than thirteen years, all of which were prior to April 1, 1972, the effective date of the Hong Kong Immigration Ordinance (supra). It is our conclusion that the thirteen years of continuous “ordinary residence” in Hong Kong accorded the applicant status as a “Chinese resident.”
Service review of the provisions of the above Hong Kong Immigration Ordinance has led to the determination that a person who has been accorded or is eligible to be accorded status as a “Chinese resident” in Hong Kong enjoys the privilege and benefits of permanent residence in Hong Kong. Accordingly, such a “Chinese resident” must be regarded as having been firmly resettled in Hong Kong and, as interpreted by Rosenberg v. Woo, supra, is not eligible for classification as a refugee under section 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the decision of the District Director. We find the applicant, prior to his arrival in the United States, was firmly resettled outside the country from which he fled, and that he is not
ORDER: It is ordered that the denial decision of the District Director be affirmed.