The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has ruled on the case of a woman whose right to Macau residency was canceled due to her divorce.
In a statement, TUI confirmed the judgment of the Court of Second Instance (TSI), validating the decision of the Secretary for Economy and Finance, Lionel Leong. On July 2015, Leong had issued an order canceling the resident’s temporary residency permit on the grounds that its authorization had expired.
The case dates back to October 2009, when the woman was granted an extension of her husband’s temporary residency permit by the Macau Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM), due to his investments in the territory.
The couple divorced in September 2014, and the woman’s residency permit was revoked based on the change in her marital status.
The woman subsequently appealed to the TSI, which ruled against her. She then resorted to the TUI, claiming that she was an investor alongside her husband, since their matrimonial regime was a partnership of acquests. As such, the woman justified her residency based on her contributions to their joint investments.
She added that after the divorce, she had made an investment similar to the one she had made in order to secure their initial permit. She claimed the second investment fulfilled the conditions in Article 18 of Administrative Regulation No. 3/2005.
The Collective Court explained in its ruling that permit of temporary residency had been granted to her ex-husband, and her permit was merely an extension of his as a member of the household. Such a request, the Court said, is not subject to any marital regime or assets.
Regarding the second claim, the same court noted that according to the Article 18 (1) of Administrative Regulation No 3/2005, “The interested person must keep, throughout the period that the temporary residence is authorized, the legal basis that grant such authorization [of the marriage].”
The second paragraph of the same article states that “temporary residence permits must be canceled if the grounds referred to in the previous paragraph are terminated or changed, except when the person concerned becomes a new legal situation within the period fixed by the IPIM or the amendment is accepted by the competent body.” The article noted that such a task could only be completed by the person to which was granted the permit whom, in this case, is the woman’s husband.
As the woman’s residency was justified solely by her membership of a household of which she is no longer a part, her permit has been revoked. RM
No Comments