False: HK permanent residency rules remain unchanged despite claims of ‘bonus’ criteria
In February, a Xiaohongshu post falsely claimed Hong Kong had modified regulations for permanent residency applications in favor of a “bonus-point” assessment system.
The post alleged that applicants could earn additional points by submitting “Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) contribution records, proof of economic contribution, continuous insurance coverage in Hong Kong for seven years, or evidence of owning a registered business” in the city.
However, these claims have no legal basis.
Article 24 of the Basic Law states that to obtain permanent residency and the right of abode, applicants must “have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years.”
There are no newly added criteria or “bonus” items recognized by the Hong Kong Immigration Department.
Recurring false claims
Annie Lab found similar claims circulating across Chinese online platforms such as Zhihu and Sohu since 2024.
Many of them were shared by migration consultancy agencies offering advice on how to secure residency and obtain permanent status.
These posts frequently misstate that applicants must stay in Hong Kong for at least 180 days per year for seven years, even if their residency is not continuous.
The post on Xiaohongshu even suggested prospective applicants should submit an explanation letter for any absence from the city longer than 180 days.
However, none of these claims is reflected in Hong Kong’s immigration law or official policy.
What the law says
To qualify for permanent residency, an applicant must have “ordinarily resided” in Hong Kong for at least seven continuous years with a valid, eligible visa, such as an employment, dependent, or student visa. Non-Chinese nationals must also declare the city as their permanent home.
“Ordinary residence” is defined as living in Hong Kong voluntarily, legally, and for a “settled purpose,” according to the Immigration Department, even if there are temporary absences.
Some groups, such as foreign domestic helpers and imported labor scheme workers, are legally excluded from acquiring ordinary residence regardless of how long they stay.
The Right of Abode application form (ROP 145) asks applicants to declare and explain any single absence exceeding six months, but such absences do not automatically break continuous residence.
Whether an absence breaks residence depends on a qualitative assessment under Section 2(6) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). The Director of Immigration evaluates the totality of an applicant’s circumstances, including the reason and length of absence, local employment, habitual residence, and the location of close family members.
In the 2001 Court of Final Appeal case Fateh Muhammad v. Commissioner of Registration (FACV24/2000), the court ruled that the “ordinarily resident” must be given its “natural and ordinary meaning,” emphasizing that no single judicial interpretation can define residency for every context (you can find the exact wording in paragraphs 14 and 15).
In 2024, Director of Immigration Benson Kwok Joon-fung responded to public questions about whether permanent residency applicants must reside in the city for at least 183 days each year.
He said that spending more than half the year in Hong Kong would generally avoid further scrutiny; frequent or extended absence may prompt inquiries about where applicants live and work. Individuals can spend significant time abroad without losing eligibility, as long as their absence is temporary and their primary home remains in Hong Kong.
No evidence of a point-based system
In response to questions from Annie Lab, the Immigration Department reiterated publicly available information that individuals may apply for a permanent identity card if they meet the legal requirement of having “ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years.”
The department said all applications are processed in accordance with the Immigration Ordinance and established legal procedures.
The official application guidance and the Immigration Ordinance show no reference to a rumored “bonus-point” assessment.
While the documentation lists common proof of residence, such as employment records, tax receipts, bank statements, or school documents, these are used only to verify residence duration, not to earn extra points or priority.
There is no mention of other “points” seemingly less relevant to residency, including setting up a company or providing a “heartfelt explanation letter” about absence.
Misleading claims tied to scams
False claims about “new” residency criteria sometimes appear in posts by migration agents or consultancy firms, possibly for commercial gain. These posts often promote paid “assistance packages” or offer to improve applicants’ “success rate.”
Some such posts appear to exploit confusion about Hong Kong’s Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, which does use a points-based system for skilled migrants applying for initial entry visas to the city.
The permanent residency process, however, follows entirely different legal requirements and does not involve any scoring system.
Immigration-related scams have been on the rise in recent years, according to local media reports.
