Here is one example of a NIA policy where they backtracked after international awareness: Taiwan’s immigration agency backtracks and removes list of rules banning Hong Kong residents from protesting | South China Morning Post
There’s other examples too during APRC application. They’ll ask you what your nationality is. Some nationalities have a much harder time due to additional due diligence.
I stand corrected. I thought you meant rules on APRC and citizenship requirements. I have revised my reply to clarify that I am taling about APRC/citizenship rules only.
You are certainly correct that they reversed themselves very quickly on those rules that purported to ban Hong Kong residents from protesting Taiwan. This is a controversial area where national security, an important constitutional right, and existing statory law overlap and conflict. The NIA definitely screwed up on this one and overstepped their authority. You will notice that in the story, it was the Mainland Affairs Commission that had the final say on this. The Commission (together with national security agencies) has the power here as created and limited by ordinary law and the constitution. Arguable the NIA does have the power under existing law to deport people from Hong Kong for deporting people from their for participating in demonstrations. It’s probably unconstitutional though.
The NIA/Ministry of Interior does have power over the rules for how it handles applications for permanent residence:
The competent authority shall enact regulations that govern a procedure for applying for alien visits, residence, and permanent residence in the State, required documents , qualifications, types of certificates to be issued, validity periods of certificates, investment products, management and operations of funds and other matters which must be complied with. Immigration Act §35
Here the ‘compent authority’ is the NIA. In this article the legislature granted them very wide powers to process PR applications. Based on that authority, they issued the
Regulations Governing Visiting, Residency, and Permanent Residency of Aliens. Article 11(1)(6) of those regulations gives them broad power to ask for additional documentation. They are naturally of the view that this gives them the right to ask certain nationalities for more documentation. They may well be right. We will not know the answer to this question unless and until someone take the matter to the Constitutional Court.
The important point is that they are currently unquestionably acting under the color of law when they ask certainl nationalities to provide additional documentation. I don’t necessarily agree with this either but it would not be correct to say or imply that they are acting in a lawless, arbitraty way on this point. They have discretion here.