Non-permanent residents face obstacles regarding ‘change in status’

A ‘change in status’ has been hampering the renewal of residence permits submitted through the Macau Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM).  The obstacles affecting foreign families arise particularly when the main applicant changes employer or job category.
A recent court ruling came to revoke the Secretary for Economy and Finance’s decision to cancel the residence permits of an Australian family of four, mainly because the court felt sympathy for the couple’s children, who would be forced to interrupt their schooling in Macau.
The secretary’s office had revoked their residence permits, arguing that the main applicant failed to communicate a change in status before the required deadline.
Hired as Director of Development Contracts Administration in the Procurement & Supply Chain Department, the applicant was granted temporary residence status valid until 2017, which was extended to his spouse and their two children.
The court ruling indicates that IPIM received notification from the applicant in July last year, informing them that he had ended his contract with his former company on April 30 and started a new job as Supply Chain, Services and non-F&B Procurement Director.
IPIM then requested he provide a series of documents related to the change in status, including pay roll slips and tax receipts, among others. Documentation received by IPIM, however, showed that the applicant had actually left his initial employer on April 14 and not April 30, as previously stated. Furthermore, the applicant declared he was unaware that he had been required to communicate a change in status, but that he did so after being notified by IPIM.
The applicant’s new job position is similar to the previous one and so was the salary: MOP110,000 per month.
Nevertheless, he and his family lost their residency status since IPIM claimed that he failed to maintain his initial status, which allowed him to be granted residency in the first place, while later failing to submit documents regarding his new employment situation on time.
The Court of Second Instance (TSI) cancelled this decision, as the judges showed particular consideration for the couple’s two children, aged five and seven years old, who would see their academic years here abruptly interrupted. In addition, judges stated that allowing this family to continue living temporarily in Macau “does not harm public interest, especially when the applicant is employed under very similar duties as before.”
Other cases of families facing challenges in renewing residence permits have also emerged, and are often linked to a change in status.
Another applicant, who wishes to remain anonymous, told the Times that her family lost their residency status too, after living here for more than seven years. They had applied for residency under the same category as the first case.
“Our case is somewhat different but still hinges on the communication of the change in status to IPIM,” the applicant said.
“Firstly, it’s not made clear what ‘change in status’ means. If IPIM clearly specified the criteria for assessment and advised upon what criteria they originally assessed the application and the specific changes that they require to be advised [of], I’m sure that fewer families and individuals would have such issues of losing their residency status,” she added.
Macau’s administrative decree number 3/2005 states that a residence permit shall be cancelled if there is a change in the applicant’s initial status.
But there’s an exception to the rule, as the law states that an individual may communicate his/her change in status within the timeframe given by IPIM, or if the change in status is accepted by the institute. The applicant should therefore communicate any change in status to IPIM within 30 days.
However, the law fails to clarify some of the questions often raised by applicants, who are unsure if this means changes to marital status, living address, salary, family composition, job, salary, or economic status.
“Nothing is clear. IPIM needs to make it clear to applicants what IPIM needs to know and what is likely to happen when status does change,” the applicant continued.
Furthermore, she recalled that applicants are required to meet IPIM’s deadlines to communicate a change in status, but the institute “can make and advise the outcome of its decision whenever it wishes,” not taking into consideration that, while the temporary resident awaits a decision, their families sometimes have to face endless bureaucratic woes in terms of schooling, immigration, health services, drivers licenses, finance, investment, or even when trying to borrow books from a local library.
Another issue pointed out by the applicant is the apparent lack of assessment criteria other than the main applicant’s economic contribution to Macau society, mainly by his/her salary and job status.
“There are other contributions that are arguably more valuable but the criteria for temporary residency is based only on the main applicant without any consideration for the contributions of other family members to the community,” she said, adding that “in our case each and every family member was involved in either representing Macau in sporting or academic endeavors and trained local residents in sporting, cultural and academic achievements at very high levels.”
Furthermore, she recalled that despite her family’s linguistic abilities, investment in real estate, substantial local assets, and involvement in the community, they still lost their residency status.
“None of this was included in the criteria for assessment (couldn’t be), and again was not taken into consideration when IPIM decided that after over seven years of living in Macau this family was not worthy of residency.”
She believes that to be granted Macau residency one needs “to fit into a particular box, with very little room to contribute in other ways,” as applicants “must comply with one narrow view of what it is to be an acceptable resident, and in the long run Macau misses out.”
In addition, the applicant recalled that “Macau’s administration does not appear to be clear on the intent behind the law. At the moment the department seems to apply the regulations and makes discretionary decisions that have a huge impact upon the lives of families that the department itself originally assessed as being of value to the Macau community. A change in job title, salary, or job description (which one would expect to occur within 7 years) should not change the value of the future contribution that the applicant’s family can make. Surely the intent of the law is to keep valuable people who want to contribute and be part of the community. Regulations need to be developed and applied to meet the intent behind the law. The intent behind the law and the letter of the law do not seem to mesh here,” she said.
“Going through the courts is costly, time consuming, and even if one does win, the outcomes are still not guaranteed at the administrative level,” she stressed.
The couple’s children had to relocate and study abroad, while their company has also been relocated and no longer employs Macau people.
“We viewed Macau as our home but because we weren’t able to help the bureaucrats tick all the boxes, Macau doesn’t want us, and one error can sever a great relationship and taint many years,” she reiterated.
The Times contacted IPIM for clarifications on which changes in status should be communicated by temporary residents but did not receive a reply before press time.

Permanent residency denied over absent family

The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) recently ruled that the former Secretary for Administration and Justice and the Identification Services Bureau (DSI) violated the MSAR’s Basic Law when denying an Irish national permanent residency because his family did not live in Macau.  According to Macau’s Basic Law, a person is entitled to the right of permanent residency after he or she has lived in Macau for seven consecutive years, regarding the territory as his or her “permanent or final place of residence.” “We believe that for an applicant who has in fact been separated from his family, his wife and underage child not living in Macau doesn’t prejudice his taking Macau as his permanent place of residence,” TUI’s ruling reads.