Bad news about getting an APRC for dependents

I read it, that does seem to be the case. I think if she gets a good TEFL she’s got a chance at getting a job, but even is she has legal qualifications, it’s not going to be easy being neither white nor from one of the special countries.

I’m thinking of having her start a business. The requirements to get started aren’t that bad, but there’s the matter of running a successful business. I’ve got plenty of ideas and marketing experience, but I also have a job. The only thing I can think for her to do is food-related, and there are so many regulations around food, especially imported. Business is a crap-shoot anyway.

1 Like

Immediately below is a link to something that looks like it could be a Chinese version of “Instructions for Foreigners to Apply for Permanent Residency,” but it doesn’t seem to contain any instructions specifically written for foreign professionals:

https://www.immigration.gov.tw/5385/7244/7250/7317/永久居留/30029/

Immediately below is another link to a cached version of a PDF of another, seemingly older document that looks like it could be a Chinese version of “Instructions for Foreigners to Apply for Permanent Residency,” and it does seem to contain instructions written for foreign professionals (in order to get the html cache, I clicked for a translation, but you should get the original):

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.immigration.gov.tw%2Fmedia%2F20359%2F0903-外國人申請永久居留送件須知.pdf&anno=2

I think this is a link to the PDF whose cache is linked above:

https://www.immigration.gov.tw/media/20359/0903-外國人申請永久居留送件須知.pdf

This appears to be the pertinent language in the Chinese PDF, corresponding to 4(5) of the English instructions you mentioned in the first post:

I can’t read Chinese, but some of the English of Article 16 of “Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals” seems to correspond well with “Instructions for Foreigners to Apply for Permanent Residency.”

Here’s 4(5) of the Instructions, etc.:

Here’s the English of Article 16 of the for the Act for the Recruitment, etc.:

https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawSearchContent.aspx?pcode=A0030295&norge=16

Here’s the Chinese of Article 16 the Act for the Recruitment, etc.:

https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawSearchContent.aspx?pcode=A0030295&norge=16

(Side note: In the text above, Google Translate translates 《我國》(“my country”) as “China,” which I guess means “the Republic of China.” See for example this Facebook post:


Does 《我國》mean “the ROC,” and if so, is that a relatively new development?)

Here’s the English of Article 15 of the Act for the Recruitment, etc:

https://law.moj.gov.tw/ENG/LawClass/LawSearchContent.aspx?pcode=A0030295&norge=15

Here’s the Chinese of Article 15 of the Act for the Recruitment, etc.:

https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawSearchContent.aspx?pcode=A0030295&norge=15

Yes it does (when written by an ROC bureaucrat), and no it isn’t.


TL/DR: the law does not require a prospective buxiban teacher to be from one of the Seven Kingdoms “seven countries”, but a buxiban may legitimately want a teacher to have a certain accent and so on. The MOFA decides which countries are officially English speaking (regardless of what other countries actually think).

1 Like

Sorry I can’t contribute … bit fuzzy , but I feel for your situation . Any way you can register a representative office here just to get an arc for your partner ?

2 Likes

Okay, how about this relatively brief one:

If you were to read the below stuff–

–without anyone telling you what it meant to them or trying to influence you in any way, which of the two meanings below would you take?

(a) Upon the elapse of five years, and if everything else is according to Hoyle, the foreign professional and his dependents can apply for permanent residency.

or

(b) Upon the elapse of five years, etc., the foreign professional can apply for permanent residency, but his dependents have to wait another five years.

Or would you have interpreted it some other way?

One more question, and then I’ll try very hard to butt out: does the interpretation that the NIA gave ShaoLeFen hinge on the word 《後》in the above quote?

My first understanding of the part was,
Dependents of a foreign professional can apply for APRC after 5 years of residency since the professional get APRC.

I somehow changed the understanding to that
Dependents of a foreign professional with 5 years of residency can apply for APRC after the professional get APRC.

1 Like

My first impression is (a), but after re-reading it I can see (b) making sense too. :2cents:

1 Like

How about dependents of ROC citizens. For example, if someone has children over 18 who are ROC citizens, would it be easy for the parent to get an APRC based on dependency?

Is this related?

May the foreign spouse maintain the rights to reside in Taiwan after his/her wife/husband as a Taiwan’s citizen dies or divorces?

Pursuant to the Immigration Act, Regulation Governing Visiting, Residence and Permanent Resident of Alien, the foreign spouse may apply to branches of the National Immigration Agency.
(1). After death of the spouse as Taiwan’s citizens, the other party as a foreigner may apply for permanent residence regardless of having children or not. However, in the event it may cause damage to public interests, the permanent resident certificate may become abandoned if necessary.
(2). Foreign brides may not maintain the rights of residence in Taiwan after the residence reasons do not exist, expect that they have children to take care or other unavoidable reasons to enable them to reside.
(3). After divorce, no legal issues shall not be seen as the residence reasons, except that any special conditions take place to enable them to reside.


Or, if it is as for a foreign parent of an independent child who is a ROC citizen, the parent cannot get a residency as a dependent of the child, iiuc.


Or, if the dependent of a ROC citizen is a spouse of the citizen on a spousal ARC, the person just needs 5 years residency and easier proof of livelihood than other applicants. If the child can financially support the parent, it can be counted as livelihood, iirc.

I would never suggest this as a legal or viable option, but I find this requirement somewhat absurd. Say you borrow NT$5 million for a short period at a reasonable interest and it’s in your account when you apply for the APRC, would there be any follow up checks?

They will ask why it suddenly showed up.

They will insist that the amount had to have been on deposit for at least a year to qualify. But that’s BS! I did this for a friend and NIA tried to tell us this, but I demanded to see where it was official policy in writing. They couldn’t and had to allow it. This was back in 2010, so I don’t know what the official policy is now.

Well, that’s not the issue. She has an ARC as a dependent. She just wants to work legally.

The first one (a) turns out to be correct. We’ve been going under the assumption that she could work soon and didn’t make other plans. Now we’re a year behind.

I’m sure some checks are done. Anyway, there’s no possibility of getting that sum.

if naturalization with renunciation of your current nationality can be an option, she can work after shorter waiting time.

This one, the one immediately below, is correct?

And that, I guess, would mean that this one, the one immediately below, is not correct?

The one turned out to be correct is (b), I think.

1 Like

Thanks, @tando. I was becoming confused. :slight_smile:

By “correct,” I mean correct according to what the NIA told ShaoLeFen.

I guess to have a chance of really finding out which reading is correct, it would be helpful to talk to whoever wrote the instructions, or whoever was in charge (i. e., “the boss”) of the writing of them, or at least someone who participated in writing them.

But then the same could be said about Article 16 of the Act for the Recruitment and Employment of Foreign Professionals, which I think the instructions are based on.

Not even close.

(b) is the one that is applicable to my situation. I think what we’ve labeled as A and B are for different situations, but B is for me, sadly.

1 Like

I’m sorry for the mistake. I thought you meant (a) was what the NIA told you.

To me, (a) seems fairer.

I wonder if there’s a safe way to make sure whether (b) is what the instructions and the underlying law mean–a safe way to make further inquiries.

And I take it she’s not from a country that doesn’t allow renunciation? (In which case she would be exempt from the requirement to renounce.)