Section 2A of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) is the final stop on the entire path to migrating to Hong Kong. This section defines who is a “Hong Kong permanent resident”, and its core condition — “having ordinarily resided in Hong Kong continuously for seven years or more” — has become the ultimate legal objective pursued by all holders of Top Talent Pass Scheme (TTPS), Quality Migrant Admission Scheme (QMAS), Immigration Arrangements for Non-local Graduates (IANG) and NCE visas. Drawing on the original text of the provision and combining it with Court of Final Appeal case law, this article offers an in-depth legal analysis of the core concept of “ordinary residence”.
§1 The Original Provision
For those migrating to Hong Kong, the phrase “having ordinarily resided in Hong Kong continuously for seven years or more” in paragraph (b) is the core condition for attaining permanent residency. The Ordinance itself does not provide a more precise definition of “ordinary residence” — that definition has been built up through the accumulation of common law case law.
§2 The Common Law Definition of “Ordinary Residence”
“Ordinary residence” (ordinarily resident) is a common law concept, distinct from “permanent residence”. In the common law, “ordinary residence” refers to a person voluntarily residing in a place for the purpose of settling there, regardless of whether they hold the right of abode in that place.
The Court of Final Appeal, in Vallejos and Domingo v Director of Immigration (2013) 16 HKCFAR 98, established the multi-factor test framework for determining “ordinary residence”. The court does not adopt a mechanical counting of days, but instead takes a holistic view of a range of qualitative factors.
§3 The Multi-Factor Test Framework
Based on the Vallejos case and subsequent case law, the factors for determining “ordinary residence” include:
- Purpose of coming to Hong Kong: an active, clearly intended purpose such as employment, business, study or family reunion is favoured over a passive or short-term purpose
- Nature and quality of residence in Hong Kong: owning a long-term home in Hong Kong (self-owned or under a long-term tenancy) is favoured over short-term hotels or dormitories
- Family ties: a spouse and children residing in Hong Kong constitute the strongest evidence of family connection
- Economic ties: being employed in Hong Kong, conducting business, paying tax, and so on
- Frequency, duration and reasons for leaving Hong Kong: short, frequent departures (such as business trips) are favoured over a single long absence
- Centre of life: whether the applicant’s life is centred on Hong Kong — banking, healthcare, social life, children’s education, and so on
§4 The Legal Boundary of Days Spent Away from Hong Kong
The Ordinance does not set a hard threshold for a “minimum number of days resident in Hong Kong”. The Immigration Department, in its internal guidance, generally uses “no more than 6 months away from Hong Kong per year” as a preliminary screening indicator, but this is not a statutory requirement — merely an administrative reference line of convenience.
The case of ZN v Director of Immigration (2018) further clarified: if an applicant has spent a substantial amount of time away from Hong Kong during the seven years, the Immigration Department is entitled to require the applicant to provide a “reasonable written explanation” for each period of absence. The court will not reject an application outright on the ground that “the number of days away exceeds a certain figure”; rather, it examines whether the absence means the applicant’s “centre of life” has shifted away from Hong Kong.
§5 Interruption of Continuity
The “continuous” element in “continuous ordinary residence for seven years” does not require the applicant to be physically present in Hong Kong every single day. However, the following circumstances may constitute an interruption of continuity:
- Leaving Hong Kong without intending to return (animus non revertendi)
- A break in lawful status in Hong Kong (for example, unlawful overstaying after a visa expires)
- Leaving Hong Kong for a prolonged period without being able to provide reasonable proof (for example, being posted overseas by a Hong Kong employer for many years, yet having established a new centre of life there)
This article is independent editorial research and does not constitute legal advice. For actual applications, please consult a licensed Hong Kong immigration consultant or solicitor.
Turn this guide into your next step
If you are comparing visa routes, budgets or timelines, email us a question. We point you to public policy sources such as the Immigration Department.