Eligibility for NWOHR passport+TARC if no active household registration at time of birth

So many walls of text… :dizzy_face:

1 Like

This is a really outstanding post/comment by Lain and the links are really helpful. I just want to add some additional notes and info about this comment and the subsequent ones:

In the linked blog post, the author mentions that AF384 holders have troubles applying for an Open Work Permit, but it might still be possible. Here is the application form: http://hr.mcu.edu.tw/sites/default/files/MCU/外國人工作許可申請書(個人)_1.pdf (I pulled it off somewhere, so if someone knows the official location, please add that)

The blog author also posted a link at the end of the blog post, which matches what I found via Google Search:

Please note that this is from the official ministry of labor government website and has dates for when it was updated and last reviewed. It is slightly different from the version of the form that you posted.

Note that the blog post seems to probably be from 2018:

Then on the 2nd page: “one original most recent 3-month household registration transcript of lineal relatives living with the Employed” (直系血親共同生活者3 個月內之戶籍謄本正本及親屬關係證明文件).

The version of the form that I posted in this comment instead says:

依親對象之身分證明文件影本。5.The ID certificate photocopy of the relative (in Taiwan) you depend on

Here we see it’s “依親對象” rather than “共同生活”. I’m not sure if this helps AF384 holders actually. Sometimes it feels like people sometimes treat AF384 as 依親, just that your relative is deceased. So, why did it change? Things don’t change for no reason, usually. It would be interesting to find out. At this point I can only speculate. This could be important because people in our situation may have our parent(s) 身份證 which I have presented before I think. Could that be sufficient for us? It would be interesting to find out.

Keep in mind that 對象 can sometimes mean a partner (i.e. marriage), although it doesn’t need to mean this. I don’t think it’s really meant to be restricted to such a definition in this case, but I think it could contribute to confusion or just an annoying tendency for some people to start thinking of us in that context automatically. In combination with the fact that our TARCs have “spouse” fields (empty for those of us who are not married), I just find the whole process to be riddled with possible assumptions about how laws should be applied.

If you look at the various criteria for TARC applicants, there is no designation of which count as 依親: https://www.immigration.gov.tw/media/42540/相關證明文件一覽表.pdf

Does anyone have any documentation that shows which categories count as 依親? I find it interesting that on our TARCs, there is only a possible field for “spouse” but not for dependent relative.

If you search Google for images related to “依親居留證”, it’s not easy to find examples of AF353:


I found this example but it’s really old and fuzzy, but to me it doesn’t look like it lists 依親 for AF353 (this is almost 2 decades old, though – another case of multiracial/multinational people having trouble in Taiwan): 台烏聯姻 5混血兒終於取得居留權││TVBS新聞網

If you look closely, if looks like in the photo AF353 was classified as 海外僑民, which may be outdated terminology or at least not what our TARCs say currently.

Also a small note about this:

(just to emphasize, TARC is “our” NWOHR thing, foreigners do not apply for a TARC)

I think this is true for most cases, but there is or was at least one case where naturalizing foreigners who renounce their original citizenship must be on a TARC while waiting for a specific duration to qualify for HHR and passport, I think (or something like that). So, yes, TARC is in most cases for people with heritage from someone with Taiwan HHR, but there is one or more cases where a foreigner with no such lineage/heritage may get a TARC.

Notice that on this form, in contrast to many other government forms, you can only fill out one address field. Usually you provide both your HHR address, and the address of where you live. But it seems here they only want one address which is the address of your dependent (“lineal relative(s) living with the Employed”).

I might be going crazy, but I didn’t see this. All I saw was one field for address, which is for:

在台居住地址Address of Resident in Taiwan

and under 申請人(Name of foreigner):


To me, this seems like it would be the 居留證 holder.

Also, note that this form is a “one size fits all” solution for all cases. However, not all cases will need all fields. We don’t know which are required fields for which scenarios. For example, there is a section if you have someone act as an agent on your behalf to fill out the paperwork, and this is certainly not applicable/required for all applicant scenarios.

So, do AF384 need to have a relative vouch for them as seems to be the spirit/intent of those fields? Or do they simply not need to fill them in? I’m not sure if any of us truly can answer that unless we’ve applied and talked about it in depth with several official sources.

Another example of form fields like this: tax rates for home ownership are different based on if you reside there or not. The application form for identifying the home as the one you primarily live in has fields to indicate if you have a 居留證, but the same form later also has a field for HHR. If the form anticipates that the applicant using the form could be on a visa, they probably can’t be expected to fill out the HHR part, right? I can write more notes after I go clarify that with that office for that form, but this is just an example of form fields applying to different people/scenarios differently for a single form.

Part of me wants to know what would happen if an AF384 holders walks into the MOL and asks for an Open Work Permit—are we worrying too much, and they have some SOPs guiding that? But then again, I currently don’t want to risk anything …
According to this, if only your person is in Taiwan, but your work has no relation to Taiwan whatsoever (e.g. no one pays you NTD, you don’t spend NTD, etc.), then you could do this kind of “work” or more specifically, you don’t require a work permit.
Sadly, we didn’t double-check this answer, but I did some further research on this. Here is what I found:
This is a government-issued clarification about the question what constitutes “work,” and that under specific circumstances, those people in Taiwan who do “work” do not require a work permit. There is no English version, but you can open the link and follow along and perhaps the others can double-check my interpretation.

Because I didn’t want to do it myself, I asked a relative to help me ask the labor office, and he said the office told him that if the work is outside of Taiwan, for a non-Taiwan employer, and the employee is employed outside of Taiwan (i.e. the legally binding agreement is formed outside of Taiwan), the ministry of labor does not care about it. That said, they handle labor issues, but isn’t deportation or visa cancellation handled by the NIA? Can 1 office truly answer this question on their own? I assume NIA wouldn’t take such action on their own if the labor office does not see it as a violation, but is that a safe assumption? What about the tax office?


Returning to another topic, unrelated to work but related to (re-)establishing my own HHR in Taiwan during residency, something you said earlier, and something you said in your latest post, caught my eye – the issue about the validity of the old address on an old HHR (my father’s old HHR that I would want to re-activate and re-use as my own):
My question on all of this is: What if the old address on my deceased father’s old HHR is no longer valid? Can that pose any problems for me if I were to try to use that old HHR (with invalid address, of deceased parent) as my own for purposes of establishing 1-year residency on the TARC?

I don’t think the address currently needs to be valid for the TARC application. I think it’s just that the HHR needs to be not cancelled. A lot of streets and buildings were demolished and renamed and addresses changed over the past generation or two. Many addresses changed or do not exist anymore.

On the subject of address, I used a relative’s address for my TARC (not lineal relative and this relative is not used in my application in any way) and it’s just a way for them to know where I plan to reside. I recently bought a new home, and went to change the address. One staff person correctly asked if I bought a home and gave me a form, and as a side note incorrectly asked if I was from Hong Kong, maybe because currently there aren’t a lot of other types of people at the immigration office (although I still consider it to be total speculation on their behalf, maybe because I’m multiracial and Anthony Wong has been in the news lately). I explained to them I was a NWOHR. After I filled out the form I got another ticket and went to another counter, where another staff person looked at my TARC and asked if I was a “依親” case. I wasn’t sure how to respond so I said yes (maybe this was incorrect and we don’t count as 依親), but my mother passed away already, and then they said “well then what are you going to change the address to?” and I explained that I recently bought a home and they asked to see the ownership papers, which I provided them with. So based on this recent experience, my understanding is that the address is just where you officially live, but if you have a living relative that you’re using for the TARC as a relative you’re depending on, then you’re supposed to use that address. Note that in practice, everyone knows that an HHR address is not necessarily where someone actually sleeps day-to-day (after all, during elections people often travel back to their HHR address to vote in their local district), so I assume if you’re using a relative to depend on for your TARC, they probably want you to use the same address but realize you might not be there every day/night.

I think this might relate to what Lain wrote about the blog post:

For him (the author) this was not possible, because the address of his father’s HHR was not updated when he moved elsewhere and later passed away, so he couldn’t live there anymore

The blog post says:


To put it less technically, this sounds like office worker bull**** to me. What I mean is, it sounds like what the government office told him was possibly not correct. How would that prove that you lived with the deceased relative if you used their former place of residence for your TARC as your current address of residence after they died? What if we lived together in a foreign country? Just to rant more, specifically this:


So I left my mom’s body at birth and then we just never lived together? That’s pretty rare. So if your mom dies in childbirth, the government says you deserve no related rights? This all just smells a little off to me. It smells like an office worker just made up their own interpretation. I’m speculating, but it wouldn’t be the first time this happened.

This way, when I ask at the TECO office, “can I get an NWOHR passport and a TARC?”, and when the TECO office sees the case file with all application forms completed and all supporting documents (even if some are placeholders) present, that will reduce their work to almost zero and enable them to just focus on what, if anything, is missing.

Yes, definitely do this, but beware that it doesn’t mean the TECO office knows how the AF384 workflow works. You may still need to explain it to them, and if they tell you otherwise, tell them they need to talk to the immigration office in Taiwan. One specific TECO office worker gave me such bull**** reasons why I could not apply (i.e. they didn’t finish reading a sentence???) and seemed to only believe me when I told them point blank that the NIA in Taiwan told me I could apply and under what rationale they explained to me. The entire conversation was in Chinese, also. I had to explain to them in Chinese how the law they are supposed to facilitate works. Not all TECO experiences are like this, but be prepared for this type of person.

@tando :

iiuc, permanent residency means HHR for nationals.

I don’t think so, at least in this case. The law Lain was referring to is about work permits and the section is specifically about foreign people engaging in work, and nationals with HHR need not apply for a work permit, so it wouldn’t make sense to include them here I think. I think in this context, this most likely is specifically about a 永久居留證 holder and therefore 永久居留者.

Example of just one type of 永久居留者, presumably without HHR and under another nationality:


Here are more items for the 定居 process:

Note this:


Again, for setting up the HHR you have options. You can use 1 of 5 options. One of the options is lease contract (i.e. rental agreement). Make sure you get that from your landlord if you’re renting and not planning to use one of the other 4 options.

Also, here we see again some differentiation for people who are using the status of 依親

And for getting the HHR and ID card:


yes, I tried to mean this and nationals cannot get the APRC.

1 Like

It doesn’t matter for my case, but I happened to read about exactly this case yesterday, so in the spirit of reinforcing our collective correct understanding, I’ll post the link here:

Page 87 of that document says:

So, it’s exactly as you said. And although that document doesn’t concern NWOHRs specifically, it does contain a lot of practical information about moving to and living in Taiwan.

1 Like

This is an old information, which is not applied today. They get TARC and NWOHR status before renouncing original nationality now.

1 Like

Tando I want to know if MY grandfather have a HHR but what if he dont have taiwan id.and has only taiwan passport and PASSED away already did my mother get a TARC?
2)you said lineal relatives what if my mother have siblings 3 of them and all of them left taiwan to live in the philippines and can my mother use there previous HHR to get a TARC?

@Jasonong335933, let’s continue this conversation in the thread on your case.

I think I already posted what I can say in this and some other posts in the thread.

1 Like

Unfortunately my Chinese skills are currently at pre-beginner levels (我只會說一點). I will not be able to convincingly argue my case in Chinese.

Given that the local TECO representatives might not be familiar with detailed issues about NWOHRs, my original idea of getting everything done at the local TECO office might not be the best course of action.

Instead, it might be better to apply for only the NWOHR passport at the local TECO office, since that hopefully should be straightforward. Then for the TARC I could investigate @Lain’s idea about using an agent who is located in Taiwan and can speak Chinese on my behalf to confirm directly at the NIA in Taipei the various procedures to get the TARC and the various rules surrounding what sort of work is or is not allowed.

That said: what sort of agents are available to do this sort of work? @Lain, what kind of an “agent” did you have in mind? I don’t want to burden my extended family members in Taiwan with this issue. Therefore I would prefer some kind of a professional agent for hire like a lawyer or specialist, who could speak both English to me and Chinese to the NIA. Any ideas about how to find such a professional agent?

this one comes up at the top of my search results.


1 Like

I would recommend still trying TECO first. Hopefully their staff has some ability in the local language(s) where you live, and you can start there still as a first step before committing to international travel and buying plane tickets. Just be prepared to need to explain things, and don’t get dejected if they don’t understand the law. Generally speaking, their specialization is not in immigration, and to be fair, they need to handle a broad range of tasks well beyond the scope of immigration only.

That said, the HHR office probably doesn’t support English services very well since it’s a locally-focused service. The NIA may have a bit, but the thing is you’ll be going to the 國人 section/floor which mostly sees and serves Chinese and Taiwanese speakers and forms/writing.

Lain’s suggestion of an agent may be a good option, but I don’t have any useful experience to share there.

Hey @tando,

For this, do you have some related documentation/information?:

This is an old information, which is not applied today. They get TARC and NWOHR status before renouncing original nationality now.

I still see the AF372 category for applying for a TARC saying 前款以外,在國內取得國籍者。

You’re probably right, but would be great to clarify just in case anyone else reading this might need clarity.

this part is wrong now. Previously, they should renounce original nationality before (or when) they apply for naturalization. Now, they should renounce within a year from the approval of naturalization and getting TARC.

Article 9 of Nationality Act

1 Like

What does “get that” mean above? Does it mean to “get a copy of the rental agreement” from the landlord for the 定居 process? I would assume that getting a copy of the rental agreement is regular practice, but I sensed from your sentence that you were stressing the importance of some irregular activity or agreement that must be secured from the landlord. What specifically did you mean?

Assume that the rental property address is registered during my 定居 process to establish my own HHR, and finally get my National ID card with full rights and obligations as a Taiwanese citizen.

Then, assume that I must leave Taiwan for several years (after my 1 year Taiwan-area residency has finished). What would be the general roadmap for what needs to be done then? @Lain you mentioned most of the items above, but I wanted to try to summarize the steps. Are you planning to leave Taiwan immediately after your 1 year residency? If so, then that lines up with one of my possible plans (the plan to get residency ASAP for 1 year, but then leave Taiwan again for several years, but planning to return for retirement).

Assuming one acquired one’s own HHR through the 定居 process and using a rental property as the HHR address, then one needs to leave Taiwan soon thereafter for several years. Would the steps be like this?

  1. Cancel the rental contract. Does this have any influence on the HHR? Does anything need to be changed for the HHR, or can it be left as-is with the old address of the canceled rental contract?
  2. Keep the National ID card.
  3. Apply to be “Overseas Chinese” status. (this needs more research)
  4. Other necessary un-registration procedures due to leaving Taiwan and “Overseas Chinese” status.
  5. Stop paying NHI due to “Overseas Chinese” status.
  6. Leave Taiwan for several years.
  7. HHR automatically deactivates after 2 years.
  8. Come back to Taiwan after 10-15 years.
  9. Re-activate HHR and update HHR with new rental property address.
  10. Un-Apply/Cancel “Overseas Chinese” status.
  11. Other re-registration procedures. (this needs more research)
  12. Start paying NHI again.

Now, the awkward thing about all of this would be the following sequence of actions, done within a short timeframe:

  1. Establish HHR which, based on the word 定居, means to “settle down”. This might involve a lot of paperwork.
  2. Immediately apply for “Overseas Chinese” status and leave Taiwan. This might also involve a lot of paperwork which basically contradicts the meaning of #1 – one just settled down in Taiwan, and then gets up and leaves Taiwan?

Would that be frowned upon? Is there a minimum span of time that should pass between #1 and #2? Or am I worrying too much?

When nationals with HHR leave Taiwan for a long period, say more than a year, they are supposed to move out their HHR (~deactivate HHR: 戶籍遷出國外 in Chinese). If they don’t their HHR will be automatically deactivated after 2 years.
The HHR may be conected to NHI, but you need to confirm.

Overseas Chinese” status may be mostly to avoid conscription for young male nationals.

To reactivate a HHR(辦理遷入or恢復戶籍), you need a proof of address again.

As for the address, if you can borrow your extended relative’s address, transcript of the HHR and the relative’s permit can be the proof of the address.

yes, imo

Some sites in Chinese


1 Like

I didn’t mean anything particular other than you’ll need the document so make sure you have it when the time comes. I’ve never rented in Taiwan, so I don’t know what is normal and not when dealing with landlords other than some details other people told me about unrelated processes like early termination of rental agreement.

Also note that the government only recently changed the law to require landlords to allow people to use their address for HHR (I think maybe it has tax implications or other legal implications for the landlords).

I agree with Tando. You probably don’t need overseas Chinese status as far as I know, unless you want to share info about the purpose it will serve to help you in some way (maybe we can confirm or further clarify the validity of any such concepts).

I don’t think 定居 involves a lot more paperwork beyond what you’ll have already done and compiled up to that point.

Socially it may be frowned upon to get citizenship and leave immediately, but legally I don’t think it matters.

Returning to the fundamental issue of my case – the status of my father’s HHR at the time of my birth. There may be a problem.

I’m not sure about this anymore.

The key question is whether or not the status of the HHR, at the time of birth of the descendant, is important.

The optimistic line of reasoning laid out in our earlier discussion argues that expiry of the parent’s HHR at the time of the descendant’s birth does not matter for the descendant’s TARC application:

Unfortunately, I just discovered by re-reading the old threads that in @multipass’s situation, the NIA appeared to require proof that the deceased parent’s HHR was active at the time of birth.

Here’s the quote from @multipass’s thread (cue depressing music here):

This unfortunately seems to match with my case:

  1. Deceased ROC parent
  2. HHR currently inactive
  3. Descendant born overseas
  4. Need to prove HHR was active during the date descendant was born. :sob:

And @paperclip’s case also relied on an active, non-expired HHR, as stated above:

Please, prove me wrong. Do I still have a chance at a TARC (under AF384) if my father’s HHR was inactive (i.e. expired automatically due to long overseas residence) at the date I was born? @multipass, could you perhaps clarify what exactly you had to prove about your HHR to get your TARC application approved? When you say you had to prove your mother’s HHR was “active” at the time of your birth, does “active” mean “not expired”?

I really want that to be true. But I’m not sure that we have seen proof of such a case (born to overseas ROC national with expired HHR) having successfully gone through.

If I attempt to understand the law that tando quoted, it states that these persons are eligible for a TARC (through AF384, though that’s not stated on the page):

Now, what is the exact meaning of 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民? Based on @multipass’s quote above, it seems the NIA took a hardline stance and said that the key aspect was proof that the HHR was active at the time of the overseas birth of the descendant.

Also from @Lain’s thread we see:

Again, implying that active status of HHR a time of birth seems to be required.

Can anyone point to evidence that an inactive HHR at time of birth can be used / has successfully been used for an AF384-based TARC?

If not, then AF384 might not be an option for me.

I think the only glimmer of hope is this part of @tando’s post:

Because of my limited Chinese ability I need time to work through the Chinese wording of the text to see if it really implies the “or originally” as stated in the English translation.

But even if “originally” having had HHR (i.e. HHR was expired at time of birth) still qualifies the applicant legally for an AF384-based TARC, the unfortunate fact remains that, as I understand, the NIA required @multipass to prove that the HHR was active at the time of birth, taking a stricter view of the law. So it could be an uphill battle to argue to the NIA that AF384 does not require HHR active at time of birth, but only requires having “originally” had an HHR. To make such a challenging legal argument to the NIA, I would probably go with an immigration lawyer like the one @tando linked to above (thanks @tando for the link to the Taiwanese immigration laywer).

Thanks for reading. Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Hi @Hayashi,

Overall I think it might not be a problem, but I don’t know for sure. If I had to guess, I would guess it’s probably not a problem.

Through the many discussions we’ve had, we’ve discovered that there are actually many statuses of household registration that probably aren’t clearly explained to the public (at least in English terms).

‘Active’ can mean different things. For example:

  • Active could mean not ‘expired’ or ‘inactive due to continuous duration outside of country’
  • Active could mean ‘not cancelled’ due to renouncing citizenship or losing citizenship for any other reason

I’m also uncertain that these concepts of ‘active’ or ‘not active’ existed at the time when I was born, or at the time you were born. I think we can’t assume the law and execution of the law (i.e. SOPs the government workers used to carry out the related work) in general, and the HHR law specifically, operated the same way without changing over the years.

I’ll try to check later, but at the time I was born my mother hadn’t been residing in Taiwan for multiple years, and I’m not completely sure but I would guess that she may not have returned to Taiwan for multiple years as well.

I think I just had to prove that my mom had a legitimate HHR at the time that hadn’t been cancelled or anything like that, but even so, I think I know of at least 1 case where a person’s parent’s HHR was still accepted despite ‘renouncing citizenship’ (if I remember the timeline of that case correctly).

I really want that to be true. But I’m not sure that we have seen proof of such a case (born to overseas ROC national with expired HHR ) having successfully gone through.

I think we do, for at least a couple of the various definitions of the term ‘expired’.

Can anyone point to evidence that an inactive HHR at time of birth can be used / has successfully been used for an AF384-based TARC?

I don’t think I have evidence handy, but I do believe I’ve heard of this case succeeding. Some people keep information like this somewhat private due to all of the struggles they have with the government around this issue, which can lead to fears of having their legal status here changed/revoked, which is really painful for a lot of children of Taiwanese parents in my experience. So, just because people aren’t rushing to post their personal details online doesn’t mean that there aren’t cases exactly like yours.

At this point, I would say that if you truly want to go through with this and believe it is important to you, you can just go ahead and give it a shot. If you are worried about it not working it, you don’t need to spend the time to try. However, either way you will need to try and see the results to truly know what the outcome will be. I personally think you should get the HHR for your parent first and review it in detail with someone with Chinese language skills and start there. That said, you will be relying on their interpretation, which is going at add another layer of potential confusion, so be sure to ask carefully, or even try doing your own analysis up front and then asking them about anything particular terminology.


Thanks – that would be very helpful to serve as a specific example of what kind of an HHR status you were able to use successfully for an AF384-based TARC. In other words, this can hopefully shed some light on what the NIA expects when it wants to see an HHR that was “active” at the time of birth.

Also, what Chinese word would you use to describe the “active” or “legitimate” status that your mother’s HHR had at your birth? (I assume this would be the same as the Chinese word for “active” that the NIA used when it demanded to see an “active” HHR at the time of your birth.) If your mother’s HHR status at the time of your birth (automatically expired due to multi-year overseas residence, but not canceled, and hence still in some sense “active”) was essentially the same as my father’s HHR status at the time of my birth, then by knowing the Chinese word (or phrase) to describe this “active” status I can make the argument that my father’s HHR fulfills the requirements for AF384.

To avoid confusion, and to attempt to frame the problem in Chinese, would you agree that the problem can be stated as below? All of the Chinese phrases below are copy/pasted from the above discussion; see above for the original references.

  1. For an AF384 TARC application, an applicant must prove that s/he fulfills (三) 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民在國外出生之子女,年齡在二十歲以上。(But note this wording was proposed to be changed to 在國外出生, 出生時其父或母為居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民)

  2. To prove #1, the applicant must prove the applicant’s parent is categorized as 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民, at the time of the applicant’s birth.

  3. The requirement for the parent being 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 “at the time of the descendant’s birth” is implied by the proposed change in wording of the law such that the condition 出生時 is added.

  4. To prove the applicant’s parent was 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 at the time of the applicant’s birth, the applicant needs to provide a copy of an old HHR (戶籍謄本) to be obtained from the 戶政事務所.

  5. The mere existence of the parent’s 戶籍謄本 proves that the parent was a 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民. Even if the parent moved out of Taiwan for several years, that does not affect (assuming there was no explicit renunciation by the parent) the parent’s 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 status, according to tando’s quote:

  1. Having proved that the parent had 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 status at some time in the past, the applicant should further prove that the parent had 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 status at the time of the applicant’s birth (to fulfill the proposed and/or implied 出生時 condition). This is proved by the absence of any indication on the 戶籍謄本 of an explicit cancellation by the parent. (Note: what would such a cancellation be called in Chinese?)

  2. Having proved that the parent had 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 at the time of the applicant’s birth, the applicant must further prove s/he is the son/daughter of the parent, by means of a TECO-authenticated birth certificate. (NOTE: in my particular case, my parents’ marriage was probably not registered in Taiwan, so I would probably need to update the 戶籍謄本 to prove the marriage occurred before my birth and hence to prove I was a “legitimate” son of my 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 parent).

  3. Having completed all of the above, the applicant will have proved that s/he is the son/daughter of a parent who had 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民 at the time of birth, therefore satisfying the requirement of (三) 居住臺灣地區設有戶籍國民在國外出生之子女,年齡在二十歲以上 for an AF384-based TARC.

Agree? Disagree?



  1. 依戶籍法規定,戶籍登記係以戶為單位,指身分登記及遷徒登記兩大類,其中身分登記包括出生、認領、收養、終止收養、結婚、離婚、監護、死亡、死亡宣告等,凡曾因此而設有戶籍者,即為在台有戶籍者,未曾辦理戶籍登記者,即為無戶籍人士。
  2. 另依規定出境二年以上應為遷出之登記,其戶籍所在地所政事務所得逕行為之;當事人戶籍遷出後,仍屬有戶籍國人。



Hi, this is such a useful thread! I have just arrived back in TW and in mid-quarantine. I have a NWOHR passport and was planning on going to Immigration to ask about applying for TARC but am finding all the requirements daunting especially since I cannot read or write Chinese and speak poor Mandarin. Can anyone tell me if there are agencies or agents that can be hired to help do this for me that I could give power of attorney to? Thanks.