IN THE GRAND COURT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN URT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS F Section 23 (2) of the Immigration (Transition) Law 2017 ER OF Section 24 of the Cayman Islands Constitutional CA. KEEBLE KEVIN KNIGHT and IMMIGRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL USE NO G11 of 2020 Appellant BETWEEN URT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS DEVON LLOYD JOHNSON and IMMIGRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CA. JUAN VICENTE GIRALDO SANCHEZ and IMMIGRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Respondent USE NO G12 of 2020 Appellant Respondent USE NO G16 of 2020 Appellant BETWEEN URT OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CHARLENE CASSANDRA SALMON and IMMIGRATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL CA. CAYMAN ISLANDS LAT—Reasons for Decision 1 Respondent USE NO G25 OF 2020 Appellant Respondent
Appearances: Before: Date of Hearing Date of Decision Written Reasons Deli Mr. Dennis Brady for the Appellants Ms. Celia Middleton and Mr. Nigel Gay the Respondent Hon. Margaret Ramsay-Hale 10 March 2020 10 March 2020 served: 31 March 2020 le, Crown Counsel, for
These four ap- (“IAT”). Cour- which is the a the same chal- completeness.
At the Direct- struck out, as HEADNOTE Appeals - Appeal against decision of Immigration Appel -Appeals on point of law only JUDGMENT appeals raise the same challenge to the decision of the Immigra-sel on both sides consented to the matters being heard. tion, Hearing, the Crown argued that the appeals are an abuse under section 23(1) of the Immigration (Transition) Law 20 Tribunal ation Appeals Tribunal together, G25 of 2020, of time, but as it raises did it in my judgment for of process and must be 018, an appeal against a decision or the in the Notices.
I agreed and c- in writing, wit- Background
Each Appella- (“PR”) and ea- applications. 200331 Juan Sanchez au- t IAT can only be brought on a point of law and no arguable of Appeal. cussed the appeals with no order as to costs for reasons which I do now. It had made application under the relevant law for a grant which was refused by the Chief Immigration Officer then seiz- ed (“IAT” – Reasons for Decision 2 point of law was raised which I undertook to put if Permanent Residence ed with considering the
5. The system in applicants as Regulations’ to attain a min-
Among the Factors - Facto- that for Factor points may be described by the law for the grant of PR consists in the prescribed by Schedule 2 of the Immigration Regulation. It was common ground among the parties that, to be grant- minimum score of 110 points. action to be considered by the Chief Immigration Officer as follows: For which a maximum of 30 points may be assessed. (a), which addresses the current occupation of an applicant awarded. Factor 1 (b) provides for a maximum additional awarding of points to (2019 Revision) (‘the ed PR, an applicant had its occupation of the The Schedule provides cant, a maximum of 15 15 points to be awarded if the applica-
The explanation “L.
It was also con- no points were Factor 1(b). it is in a priority occupation. By note to the Schedule states that, Cabinet in its discretion may publish a list of occupa- priority occupations. Where such a list is published, the Board or Chief Immig- The case may be, in considering an application for per- rity around that Cabinet has not specified any priority oc- awarded to the Applicants by the Chief Immigration Officer as mmander section 30, shall take such priority occupations into ac- tion. Officer as tion Officer as ment resident account.” uphold this result, cer with respect to this
Having gone Mr. Keeble was points and M threshold of 1
The decision the IAT, which 200331 Juan Sanchez an through all the Factors set out in Schedule 2, the Chief Immigration Officer might, a total of 93 points, Mr. Devon Johnson, 81 points; Mr. Vincente Sanchez, 58 points. None of them having 10 points, he refused their applications for PR. if the Chief Immigration Officer to refuse their applications in upheld his decision. CIV-01 - Reasons for Decision 3 gration Officer awarded Ms. Charlene Salmon, 79 achieved the minimum for PR was appealed to
The Grounds of Appeal
As best as I Chief Immigrative putative error assessment of thereto, despite asserted that he points they “do not have a right to Regulations on Immigration Offi- cial and Relief sought
The Appellants
It is plain from the IAT, that award, either established by discretion in a
The allegation occupations in he contended that the IAT erred in finding that the Chief Immigration Officer as to do otherwise would have asked this Court to set aside the decision of the IAT offi-cer to grant PR to the Appellants. a reading of the Chief Immigration Offi cer’s Appeal Statement, no points were awarded under Factor 1(b) because no po- tential applicants, as the list of priority oc- Cabinet. It follows then that Chief Immigration Officer signifi ed zero points under Factor 1(b). that he made an error of law, either by referring to a non- deciding to award the Appellants zero points for their occu- migration Offi cer was pation and direct the Chief ent and the decision of nts were available for upations has not been was not exercising a existing list of priority ations or, conversely1, by failing to respect them, found the Court. 1 “consideration of and justice.” para 3 Notice of 2 On behalf of Keele Kr excess of the 15 he ew multiplicity of skills” in no course of the hearing. Mr Factor 1(a) and 15 for Fat- available for Factor 1(a). 200331 Juan Sinchez and make the Appellants’ occupations into account and making 2, cannot be sustained. The appeals, therefore, raise the quasi-jurisdiction under section 23(1). applying the terms of [Factor 1(b)] was wrong in law. Principle at Appeal in G12 of 2020 Uloyd Devon Johnson IAT. right, it was alleged that the Chief Immigration Offi cer had a discretion for Factor 1 (a) and “had failed to recognize, and give cut awarding him more points. In the exchanges between Counsel, Brady accepted that the maximum points available for Factor 1(b) and that the Chief Immigration Officer had awarded ea- 1 Of Order in IAT – Reasons for Decision 4 an award of points in point of law that could and the rules of natural retion to award points in edit, for [the Appellant’s] and the Bench during Occupation is ch applicant all points.
15. Further, it is points available necessary for exercise in full
The Appellant opportunity to list of priority judicial review of priority occu- sion that even if each of the Appellants had been awarded the under Factor I(b), none of them would have reached the the grant of permanent residency, rendering an appeal ility. as appeared to advance a further ground of appeal, asse- gments, and thus qualify for PR, as a result Cabinet’s gmentations in breach of its “legislative obligation to so” as it relates to the lawfulness or otherwise of Cabinet’s fa- mptions. It does not raise a question in issue between the Chief Immigration Officer made an error in law w ither the Notices of Appeal and the Notices of Motion filed, but struck out. G C A D R T I M E J which the LAT failed to in respect of the same 200331 Juan Sanchez ar- 16/7/2014 LAT – Reasons for Decision 5