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.
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:
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):
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.:
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).
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 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.
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.