The ruling found that a British woman, known only as QT, faced “irrational” discrimination by immigration authorities in not being awarded a dependent visa to accompany her female partner, with whom she was in a legally recognized civil union, to Hong Kong. It upheld an earlier appeal court decision in her favor. The Court of Final Appeal said that it was “hard to see how the Policy’s exclusion, on grounds of sexual orientation, of persons who were bona fide dependant civil partners of sponsors granted employment visas promoted the legitimate aim of strict immigration control.”[...]
A lower court ruled against QT in 2016, which she appealed. Along the way, global financial firms expressed their support for QT to the court, on the grounds that a more inclusive policy would help Hong Kong-based firms continue to attract top talent. The Court of Appeals ruled in QT’s favor late last year, finding that current immigration policy was effectively discriminating against gay expat couples. The Hong Kong government appealed the decision to the Court of Final Appeal, resulting in today’s ruling. [...]
The judgment from a five-member bench was careful to make clear that it wasn’t trying to open the door for same-sex marriage in Hong Kong, which conservative groups strongly oppose. Still, opinion about same-sex marriage is becoming more favorable, and this ruling could help lead to further acceptance.
No comments:
Post a Comment