12 Hong Kong people were released from prison in shackles, and the 2027 protection period was set to a new countdown.

A Hong Kong resident was scheduled to board from the Chicago O'Hare International Airport in July this year, not on a flight but in the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the investigation conducted by the United States Political newspaper on 10 October, law enforcement officials requested him to sign the “voluntary departure” document; He told the press that he would be held in detention for months if he refused to sign. The cases available to counsel indicate that at least 12 Hong Kong residents of the United States of America living under the United States moratorium have been detained at the airport since June this year. The so-called “voluntary” is a legal issue that must be tested if it is accompanied by the threat of continued detention.

The extension of the “suspension of compulsory departure” (Deferred Enforced Departure, DD) protection granted to some Hong Kong residents by former United States President Biden during his tenure is currently under arrangement as of 5 February

1. It allows eligible persons to remain in the United States for a temporary period and apply for a work permit, but unlike obtaining permanent residence, it does not automatically amount to granting political asylum. It is this gap between temporary administrative protection and immigration status that leaves room for controversy in the Trump Government to strengthen immigration law enforcement.

Release from prison does not amount to freedom: electronic leg irons and movement restrictions

According to the Political newspaper investigation and follow-up by the Hong Kong media from 11 to 12 October, 12 Hong Kong nationals were detained for periods ranging from 10 days to about two months and subsequently released after the Migration Court proceedings, but were still required to wear electronic leg irons and to observe travel restrictions. The reports do not disclose the identity of all 12 persons, the individual case decision and the immigration procedure involved, and cannot be considered as one and the same in all of their specific legal situations, nor can they be written as having been completed for the repatriation that has not yet taken place.

(a) The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in response to the South China Morning Post, stated that a stay of forced departure was an interim administrative arrangement that did not preclude law enforcement agencies from initiating deportation proceedings; Neither the work permit nor the pending application in itself creates an identity within the meaning of the immigration law. At the same time, the Department indicated that no expulsion was currently carried out under the relevant arrangements. In other words, the public sees two different levels of fact: detention and supervision have taken place; The actual and when repatriation is possible will still depend on the case-by-case process and the policy at that time.

Who will assume the responsibility of giving effect to protection after fleeing political risks?

On 18 August 2019, a large number of citizens of Victoria Park in Hong Kong participated in a rally of the democratic movement in the rain, and aerial photographs of the scene recorded the scale of the crowd gathering in the park and on the roads. Another photo from Anadolu News Agency shows citizens and a heavy umbrella who participated in the rally during the same period. These are historical figures for 2019, which are neither the current year ' s United States airport detention site nor do they represent any direct links between any of the individuals involved and the 12 Hong Kongers involved. They illustrate the political context in which the United States has developed special temporary protection for Hong Kong residents, which does not constitute evidence of the individual asylum status of 12 persons.

Following the 2019 protests and the implementation of the National Security Act 2020, some Hong Kong residents have been investigated, prosecuted or punished for expressing, organizing or other political activities in fear of returning to Hong Kong. This is the realistic context in which the United States has special temporary protection, but whether every detainee is at the same risk and must be demonstrated by his or her personal experience and evidence. (b) The use of Hong Kongers as an abstract group to talk about “safe return” and to ignore the specific national security prosecutions, cross-border political risk and individual vulnerabilities in Hong Kong; It is equally inaccurate to use the United States moratorium as a visa to guarantee that no one will ever be detained.

Evelyn Wiese, Director of the Immigration Project of the Asian Law Union of San Francisco, stated to the media that ICE was expanding the range of persons who could be detained and that those who were intimidated and had no timely access to a lawyer were particularly vulnerable to losing their effective defence. Key questions fall into the traceable system: Why do airports stop these passengers? What kind of identification have they received? Why would electronic surveillance be necessary even if the court granted the release? Are there opportunities for counsel to assist and fully understand when signing departure documents?

For Beijing, the runaways and fears generated by Hong Kong ' s political cases and the repression of dissent are the inescapable causes of this trans-ocean crisis; For Washington, failure to translate administrative protection commitments into stable and predictable procedural guarantees would expose those who had fled risk to the uncertainty of State authority. The 12 cases ultimately required a specific answer from the United States Government: who was, and to what extent, the person who was to be protected by the stay of forced departure arrangements before the expiry of the protection period and how a person should obtain relief for wrongful detention.