rustyoldtin
Perhaps that’s previously how the immigration department processed extensions but it’s becoming evident that the department will now have to comply with its own rules/laws.
General Employment Policy (GEP)
There are 5 eligibility criteria for the initial issue of a 2 year work visa (a) through to (e) including;
“(d) The applicant has a confirmed offer of employment and is employed in a job relevant to his academic qualifications or work experience that cannot be readily taken up by the local workforce.”
Then the extension following the initial 2 years;
“Such applicants will be considered only when the applicant continues to meet the eligibility criteria under the GEP.”
While nothing is ever clear when it comes to bureaucratic rules, on the surface it would seem (d) still applies to the extension just as it did to the initial issue.
So then it comes down to interpretation. How does the department define “readily taken up”?
Can a recently redundant CX airbus SO with
PR status readily take up the position of a CX airbus SO applying for an extension? Probably.
Can a recently redundant KA 330 FO with
PR status readily take up the position of a an airbus FO. Possibly.
Can a recently redundant 320 FO readily take up the position of a 320 FO considering there are no 320 FO’s currently in the company? Almost definitely.
Can a recently “retired” 55 year old airbus captain readily take up the position of an airbus SO/FO/Capt? Probably.
And there’s dozens more questions that can be asked including what defines the “local workforce”. It could be argued it’s anyone not required to apply for a work visa. It could also be argued its HKSAR passport holders. Who knows? Certainly not pprune posters and with the Immigration Department issuing 3 month visas it’s safe to say they don’t know either.
The legal wheels have commenced turning and I guess we’ll find out soon which side of the fence a judge or the government decides to push the Immigration Department.