1. The Appellant was born in Hong Kong on 1 December 1996. He is a Philippine national. Since birth, he has remained in Hong Kong on visitor conditions except for several short periods abroad. His mother is a Philippine national who has been working as a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong since 1991. 2. On 20 December 2006, an application was made on behalf of the Appellant by his mother, when he was aged 10, for verification of his eligibility for a Permanent Identify Card with the view of establishing that he enjoyed the status of Hong Kong permanent resident and a right of abode. The application was refused by the Immigration Department. Subsequently, the Appellant applied to be issued with a juvenile Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card. The application was refused by the Commissioner of Registration. 3. The Court of Final Appeal looked at two issues: First, whether the Appellant had established that he had taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence. Second, whether he had satisfied the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for a period of not less than seven years. These were conditions that have to be satisfied under Article 24(2)(4) before persons not of Chinese nationality qualify for permanent residence. 4. The Court declined to revise its approach to claims under Article 24(2)(4) established in the earlier case of Prem Singh which it applied to the present case. 5. While the Court accepted that there may be rare cases where a 10 year-old child might be able independently to establish that he had taken Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence, in most such cases, a child’s permanent residence would follow that of his or her parents and or guardians on whom he depended for support. There was no evidence that any arrangements had been made by himself or on his behalf or for his benefit to establish Hong Kong as his place of permanent residence. 6. Regarding the second issue, the Appellant contended that under the relevant regulations he was qualified to “obtain” a Hong Kong Identity Card. Therefore, relying on Gurung Kesh Bahadur,he should be entitled to enjoy the rights of freedom to travel as guaranteed under Article 31 of the Basic Law. As such, section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance does not affect him and interrupt the continuity of his ordinary residence in Hong Kong. 7. However the Court held the applicable regulations did not qualify as a right to “obtain” a Hong Kong Identity Card, but merely a right to “apply” for one. Therefore, the Appellant’s absences during the seven-year period immediately before his application for verification had prevented him from being continuously ordinarily resident in Hong Kong during that period by reason of section 11(10) of the Immigration Ordinance which meant that his previous permission to land or remain in Hong Kong expired on each departure, requiring fresh permission to be obtained each time he returned. Hence, the Appeal on the second issue failed. 8. The Court left open the question whether the appellant’s permission to remain in Hong Kong as a visitor necessarily meant that he could not build up ordinary residence here, notwithstanding numerous visa extensions spanning many years.