第三宗外傭申請居留權案判詞：http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=78990&QS=%2B&TP=JU
呢份判詞最有趣係法庭不斷強調係入境處責任去審批及要求資料，法庭只係判斷及界定何謂通常居留及永久居留，其他唔好煩佢，入境處已經有足夠法律授權去做審批。
三單以後，的確係立下通常居港的定義及標準予入境處參考，實更有助去阻截不合資格申請永久居留權的外傭，根本係幫緊政府及入境處去拆彈，而非製造人口炸彈。
Vallejos係指明點樣叫Orindary residence；
Domingo's係指明咩情況下會影響Ordinary residence，但他們情況是，夫婦於06年申請成為香港永久居民被拒提出上訴，07年律政司代行入境處批准2人不再以外傭身分留港（可自由轉換工作），但要放棄上訴至人事登記審裁處作交換條件。律政司信件指「批出此優惠條件後，你的代表再上訴已無大得著」： "The Director is of the view that the proposed arrangement under which the Appellants will be permitted to remain on time limitation with no restriction to take up employment would substantially satisfy their needs for continued residence, a privilege which in due course would lead to their acquiring right of abode in Hong Kong should they fulfil the necessary requirements. Accordingly your clients will have little to gain by continuing to litigate in the present appeals for some uncertain rights. It is important that costs are not incurred unnecessarily in further pursuing the captioned proceedings. We shall be grateful if you could take clients’ instructions and revert whether your clients will withdraw the captioned appeals." GUTIERREZ 則指明子女的申請跟父母，如父母無實際行動長留香港，亦經濟上無法支持自己（即至少無僱主支持，如Vallejos），入境處不應考慮其申請。
2. In the test case of Valiejos Evangeline B v Commissioner of Registration HCAL 124 of 2010, this court ruled in the judgment of 30 September 2011 that the Impugned Provision is inconsistent with Article 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law. For all intents and purposes, that judgment disposed of this issue in the present proceedings.
3. The remaining issues in respect of the mother’s case are,
(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the mother did not satisfy the ordinary residence requirement;
(b) Whether the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the mother did not satisfy the permanence requirement.
法庭的責任是界定何為「通常居港」及「永久居港」，而判定誰有居港權是入境處權力範圍。 10. In Ng Ka Ling[1] at p.36 to 37, the Court of Final Appeal held that a scheme for the verification of a person’s claim to be permanent resident by the Director is constitutional. The following dicta also confirmed that the primary decision maker in the process of verification is the Director, not the court,
“In holding the scheme … to be constitutional as it is directed towards verification, we have taken into account that the Director must operate it lawfully in a fair and reasonable manner and that there are safeguards to which its operation is subject.”
吳嘉玲案指明是入境處處長把關，而非法庭，重點是合法及合理
11. This is reiterated in Prem Singh[2] by Ribeiro PJ at paras. 56 to 58. At para.58, His Lordship said,
“Accordingly, a non-Chinese person claiming the right to permanent resident status and hence a right of abode, must apply to the Director for his claim to be verified. In accordance with BL art.24(2)(4), the Director is entitled to seek evidence which would establish that the applicant satisfies the entry, seven year and permanence requirements …”
入境處處長需索取資料（即四大關卡）去參考，以證明申請人符合永久居留的要求。 呢單案主要係李志喜針對小朋友在香港出世至今的年期，是否通常居港，而人事登記審裁處最惡搞的判決係，原來嬰兒係無能力證明其通常居港的意願，一切都係跟阿媽。 由於阿媽申請核實永久居民身分時，根本未轉新工，亦不如Vallejos有強烈意願留港，故法庭認為呢位GUTIERREZ 已經唔符合要求申請居留權。
第一單案已經講明，Vallejos有僱主支持，送埋間雜貨鋪畀佢，畀屋佢住，已經係特別例子；再引伸下去，自然係一貫的經濟理由：申請人要證明自己經濟能力，劏房個隻換你係入境處都唔會信佢有能力啦。無錯，經濟理由萬歲，外傭案代表律師Mark Daly親口向百幾個菲傭，包括Domingo's細仔，講的，政府根本就係嫌你地無錢。重點係經濟能力，唔係背書，而外傭申請時唯一合法工作，就係住家工；第二單Domingo's特別在，Domingo已經有Unconditional Stay，可以自由搵工，做緊司機。
所以話外傭案係假議題，根本一直入境處都有把關，只係偶爾會打上法庭去搞清楚細節，係普通法地區可謂常見，但有班港厘土共為一己眼火爆及私利，想呢個憲法權利都送畀中央。邊個禍港，市民搵鬼知。政府重點係，你無錢唔好來，一直都係用經濟理由批，我唔明點解高登仔可以扯到咩籠屋劏房都批 － 新移民香港無say，外國人入境處絕對可以唔批你。 至於入境條例 s. 2(4)(a) 其他幾條： － 外交人員及解放軍 ：按 1961年維也納外交關係公約引伸之《領事關係條例》Cap 557，一定不會有 － 非法居留及坐監：見談雅然案 及 Prem Singh案，唔計通常居留， 談雅然留係香港只係入境處酌情 － 難民：有相關案件排期中，Mark Daly負責部分 － 中央人民政府旅行證件持有人：包括雙程證，因並非欲長居香港不計 － 外勞：因並非欲長居香港不計，但可能會被挑戰 你會發覺，出問題的都係1997年6月臨時立法會修訂加上去… | 
