TUI reverses middle court’s decision on residency application for highly qualified personnel

The Court of Final Appeal (TUI) has ruled rejecting an application for residency under the former qualified personnel scheme run by the Macao Trade and Investment Promotion Institute (IPIM), the office of the president of the TUI informed.

The collective of judges from TUI reversed a previous decision of the Court of Second Instance (TSI) that had ruled in favor of the applicant.

The case dates back to August 2017, when the applicant requested a temporary residence permit from IPIM under the scheme.

At the time, she claimed the status of a specialist technician to be employed as a visiting assistant at a higher education institution in Macau.

According to the court, the job was only related to technical support without any management or supervision duties, and the documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that this person possessed professional qualifications associated with this job.

The court also noted that she had not been recognized as a highly qualified professional in other regions or countries, nor did she show that she had received any awards related to her current job, had obtained any patents for her research, or had any skills related to the professions on the list of industrial sectors for priority introduction.

At the end of the hearing, her application was rejected because the applicant failed to provide evidence that she was of particular interest to Macau.

In May of the same year, the same applicant submitted to IPIM proof of updated academic qualifications proving that she had been awarded a doctoral degree.

However, at this stage, IPIM had already completed the investigation and sent the file to the Chief Executive (CE), which did not include such proof.
The CE issued the order on December 31, 2022, agreeing with IPIM’s proposal and deciding to reject the request for temporary residence authorization.

Unhappy with the decision, the applicant appealed to the TSI, which agreed to grant the appeal and annul the contested decision.

A subsequent appeal from the CE to the TUI led the final court to address the case.

The judges noted that although the applicant did present relevant proof of her academic qualifications, this only happened long after the application and after IPIM had concluded the case analysis.

The collective court understood that there was no mistake or wrongdoing in the decision of IPIM and that the proof of the qualifications did not come at the appropriate time.

The same court noted that accepting such additional documentation after the analysis and decision on the case would cause problems and administrative complications that do not comply with procedural stability.

The court noted that strict rules and deadlines must be followed and that the applicant should have presented all the necessary documentation at the given time.

Nonetheless, the court also said that despite the rejection of the appeal, the applicant should not be prevented from making a new request based on the current proof of the degree obtained.