New Route to Permanent Residency

Summary#

The Hong Konger Promise of Refuge Act is a bill to amend the federal Immigration and Nationality Act; it would not create a separate agency or program. Its stated goal is to let certain Hong Kong residents with Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) become lawful permanent residents. The bill has been introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee; it is not law.

  • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must grant permanent-resident status to a qualifying applicant who was granted DED under one of three listed presidential actions and applies within one year after the bill becomes law.
  • The applicant must have lived continuously in the United States since January 15, 2025, with no more than 180 total days of authorized absences; must not have returned to Hong Kong or China since then; must not be subject to extradition; and must meet the bill’s criminal-conviction condition. That condition is worded unclearly in the bill.
  • A qualifying applicant’s spouse, children, and unmarried adult sons and daughters would be eligible to adjust status, subject to immigration bars except for specified exceptions. The bill does not state that USCIS must grant these family members status.
  • While an application is pending, an applicant may not be detained or removed, and must be authorized to work.
  • If an applicant gets permanent-resident status, any earlier removal order against them is cancelled, and their status is treated as effective from the date they arrived in the United States. The bill also exempts this adjustment category from numerical immigration limits.

What it means for you#

  • Potential applicants: The bill would offer a route to permanent-resident status, but only for people meeting its conditions and applying on time. “Permanent resident of Hong Kong” is not defined in the bill.
  • Applicants and family members: The bill would protect a person with a pending application from detention, removal, and removal proceedings, and require work authorization while it is pending. The text does not spell out the application process or say whether family members receive the same protections while their applications are pending.
  • Families: The listed relatives could be eligible, but they are not given the same express residence, travel, or DED conditions as the main applicant. The bill does not set a separate application deadline for them.
  • USCIS: The agency’s director would have to decide qualifying applications. The bill does not directly change taxes, create a new public service office, or require employers to take a new action.

Money#

The bill requires USCIS to handle applications and provide work authorization, but no cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • The bill gives no estimate for staffing, application processing, or other federal administrative costs.
  • It does not specify application fees or provide funding for the work.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “permanent resident of Hong Kong” or explain what evidence would establish that status.
  • The criminal condition says “a felony or 2 or misdemeanors.” The text does not clearly state the intended misdemeanor threshold.
  • The bill does not set out application rules, decision timelines, appeals, or oversight details.
  • The listed exceptions waive some—but not all—grounds of inadmissibility and deportability. The bill does not explain how USCIS would apply them in individual cases.
  • The parent Immigration and Nationality Act was not supplied, so the bill’s changes could not be checked against the current law or existing procedures.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to give a permanent-residence route to a defined group of Hong Kong residents who received DED and meet residence and other conditions.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that work authorization and protection from removal while an application is pending would give applicants more stability during the decision process.
  • Exempting this group from numerical immigration limits could prevent a numerical cap from blocking otherwise qualifying applications.

Case against#

  • One concern is that key eligibility terms are undefined or unclear, including “permanent resident of Hong Kong” and the criminal-conviction wording.
  • The bill requires USCIS to act but does not specify processing rules, timelines, or appeal rights.
  • It is unclear how many people might qualify, how many family members might apply, or what the administrative cost would be.
  • The bill would make permanent-resident status effective from an applicant’s U.S. arrival date and cancel earlier removal orders if status is granted; the text does not explain how those effects would interact with existing records or procedures.