Immigration Law | Security organizations may prohibit non-residents from leaving territory

The immigration law enacted earlier this month contains a new provision allowing the “security organizations to prevent non-residents from leaving the Macau SAR,” leaving legislators heavily concerned about this unprecedented rule.
Yesterday, the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL) held a meeting to discuss the law – specifically, articles 20 through 27. These eight provisions are related to non-resident individuals.
Article 27 prescribes that the criminal justice system, referred to as “criminal police organizations” in the legislation, may prevent a non-resident from leaving Macau for the purposes of detaining that person, or for implementing an interim measure.
For the purposes of the legislation, member departments of Macau’s criminal justice system include the Judiciary Police, the Macao Customs Services, the Commission Against Corruption, and the Public Security Police Force.
“The criminal police organizations cover a large range of departments. If any of these departments issue a departure-prohibition order, the order will be an administrative order but not a court order. The concerned non-resident person will be unable to leave Macau. We want to know the government’s purpose behind the introduction of this provision, and how will the government implement the rule?” Vong Hin Fai, chairman of the Third Standing Committee, asked.
According to Vong, this provision is completely unprecedented.
The lawmakers’ attention was also drawn to article 23 in relation to the prohibited entry of “persona non grata.”
Section one of article 23 contains five categories of “persona non grata.” These include those prohibited by international treaties; those suspected of having a relationship with criminal organizations, especially triads; those suspected of international terrorism; those posing threats to Macau’s internal security; and those restricted by an administrative measure or a court verdict.
According to section one of article 23, the immigration authority must refuse entry to any person within those categories.
Section two of article 23 then provides autonomy to the immigration authority to evaluate whether or not to refuse entry to such persons.
According to section two of article 23, the immigration authority can refuse to issue entry permits to those convicted of crimes both inside and outside of Macau and to those whom the immigration authority believes, with probable cause, to be planning to commit crimes in Macau.
“But, regardless of there being probable cause for the immigration authority to believe the persons are going to commit crimes in Macau, there would be no investigations at all. If there are no investigations, how can there be charges? When the persons have not even committed crimes, how can there be charges?” Vong questioned.
Article 26 prescribes that the entry prohibition is not a one-
off measure and that the decision to refuse entry to a person can be extended.
“Is there a limitation on the extension of the entry ban?” Vong asked. He then pointed out that the law does not answer this question.
In addition, the border immigration office will only issue visitor visas to non-residents who have arrived in Macau without a valid visa.