The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has rejected the Identification Services Bureau’s (DSI) refusal to grant permanent residency status to an applicant, the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) said in a statement yesterday.
According to the statement, A applied for the Certificate of Entitlement to the Right of Abode in the Macau Special Administrative Region (MSAR) on March 22, 2012 but the application was rejected by the bureau. The statement pointed out that A reapplied on September 29, 2016 along with many supplementary documents, yet the bureau once again rejected A’s application on October, 28, 2019 as the bureau could only verify that the applicant lived in Macau from 1956 to 1960 and from 1962 to 1967, stressing that there was no documentation proving that A was living in Macau in 1961. The statement pointed out that the bureau refused to issue the certificate because there was no evidence proving A had been living in Macau for seven consecutive years, so the applicant could not be given a Macau permanent identity card.
The statement said that A disagreed with the bureau’s decision and took the matter to court. The statement pointed out that the court supported A’s appeal and asked the bureau to issue the Certificate of Entitlement to the Right of Abode in the Macau SAR to the applicant, but the deputy director of the bureau was dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Court of Second Instance (TSI).
The statement said that the TSI panel of judges underlined that issuing the certificate is a “strictly constrained” action, adding that, however, once a Chinese national had lived in Macau for seven consecutive years, the bureau must issue the permanent residency status certificate to the applicant, and there is no leeway about it. The statement stressed that the bureau should only consider the veridicality of an applicant’s claims that appear to be untruthful or unrealistic.
According to the statement, the TSI panel said that even though there was no documentation showing that the applicant was in Macau in 1961, A’s other documentation could prove that as a minor A had completed kindergarten in 1957, and finished primary school in 1963 in the same local school at the age of 14. Moreover, the statement added, there is evidence showing that A was enroled in another school from 1965 to 1966, adding that A even held a Macau ID card issued by the police from 1963 to 1967.
The statement said that based on “the most basic experience” the court could verify that the applicant’s documents are able to prove that A was living in Macau in 1961. Therefore, the statement said, the bureau’s reason for not being able to prove A’s location in 1961 was invalid. The court said that the bureau’s appeal was rejected and the bureau should issue A the certificate.
