Originally Posted by
christep
No, that's simply not true. The 36 month rule only applies to those who acquired Right of Abode through 7 years continuous Ordinary Residence whilst not being a Chinese citizen, but if, for those in that situation, you lose the Right of Abode through then not touching HK for 36 months you are simply downgraded to Right to Land. You still have the right to live and work in HK - you lose the right to vote, and some other minor stuff.
Moreover, being "made in HK" (by which I assume you mean born here) doesn't give you the Right of Abode automatically - it depends on your citizenship and the status of your parents.
Correct. "Other minor stuff" I think is just the right to not be deported after a jail sentence for major crimes.
The 36 month rule also applies to those who were unofficially given Right of Abode based on descent from a PRC(HK) citizen but are not PRC(HK) citizens themselves (although such people may have incorrectly received an HK passport had they applied before 2008) and did not stay in HK for 7 years in order to earn RoA in their own right.
Reading this picks my curiosity - my husband is not born in Hong Kong but he is an ex government servant. We returned to Hong Kong to get our HKID and HKSAR passport in 2012 because the HKSAR passport can travel to far more places without visa than US passport. When he applied for his status, he used category 2 or whatever it was, that he was naturalized British subject and some more criteria, that fit the most to his situation. At the "interview" the immigration officer crossed out that category but put him to the 7 years category instead WITHOUT ever requiring him to submit any docs (the HKG government would have every bit of his history of employment and everything else).
While we returned to HKG several times since then and particularly frequent since 2015 due to our travel plans (passing thru 3 times this year alone), HKG is never a place we make a specific trip for. So if we do not set foot in HKG, say, between 2017 and 2020, he would lose his Right to Abode? But based on what you said, the "loss" is relatively trivial, in certain sense, so nothing to worry about?