Helper applies for PR twice, made to wait many years, then wins case Loop Cayman Islands

Black Immigrant Daily News

A Cayman Islands Court of Appeal judgment dated September 16, 2022 stated that the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (“IAT”) acted illegally, irrationally and unreasonably by summarily dismissing the appeal of Mrs Jack-Chowtee, a lady who applied for permanent residency on two occasions.

Bearing much in common with many other cases, Mrs Jack-Chowtee’s story started in February, 1997 when she came to Cayman from Jamaica on a work permit. During this time, she worked as a domestic helper for various employers, and then as a kitchen helper/dish-washer in a restaurant.

By February 2005 she was married and had a son, born in Grand Cayman.

In February 2005, she also applied for permanent residence for the first time, with her husband and their son as her dependents.

However, her application was refused by the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board (the “Board”) by letter dated August 10, 2007 because, at that time, as she was only awarded 90 points and not the 100 points required under the applicable point system.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then appealed the Board’s decision on August 29, 2007, and the IAT awarded her further points for community service, taking her to 95 points.

Not having met the 100 points required, she was advised to apply for a final one-year work permit, and she worked under that condition until May 2013.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then applied for permanent residency for a second time on May 7, 2013.

In her 2013 application, Mrs Jack-Chowtee relied on evidence of the impending purchase of a parcel of land on which a home was to be built, which could have earned her up to a maximum of 20 points if she could demonstrate that this was an “investment” in the Cayman Islands.

Unfortunately, Mrs Jack-Chowtee received no points for this investment, leaving her with a total of 84 points.

The Board’s reasoning for not awarding any points for “investment” was as follows:

The Appellant did not provide evidence of any investment in property in the Islands nor in a local business, therefore no points were awarded under this category…

It was also noted that an analysis had been made that “In view of the previous purchase history and the developers being unable to confirm ownership by the Appellant, the Board was not minded to award points for Financial Investment on the basis of the minimal deposit of CI$2,500 on a transaction which has no guarantee of being completed and in which the Appellant has no proof of ownership.”

In response to this, Mrs Jack-Chowtee filed a notice of appeal to the IAT on July 15, 2013, which the Court of Appeal said that the IAT dismissed summarily.

As to its reasons for summary dismissal, the IAT’s letter dated October 14 2013 stated as follows:

The Tribunal having carefully considered the Notice of Appeal dated 15th July 2013, including the grounds of appeal dated 26th September 2013 and all other submissions made by or on behalf of the above named appellant for this appeal, determined that insufficient grounds of appeal had been made out pursuant to Section 15(2) and 16(4) of the Immigration Law (2012 Revision).

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Mrs Jack-Chowtee then appealed the decision of the IAT, which was ultimately dismissed in the Grand Court by the Honourable Mr. Justice Richard Williams, according to a judgment published on March 6, 2015.

Following this, Mrs Jack-Chowtee was made to wait several years to have her further appeal heard by the Court of Appeal in 2022.

As to the period of time which elapsed between 2015 and now, the Court of Appeal had this to say:

This is an appeal which time has unfortunately forgot, as may be seen from the title of this action. After many years in which the Appellant, Mrs Carmen Jack-Chowtee, has sought to persuade the Attorney-General to concede her appeal, without substantive reply from the Attorney-General, new counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Mr Michael Steven Smith, has taken action to bring the matter to a hearing in this Court, for which all concerned must be grateful.

After analysing the actions of the IAT and reviewing the 2015 judgment of the Grand Court, the Court of Appeal said that “In the circumstances, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the declaration prayed that Mrs Jack-Chowtee qualifies for Permanent Residence and Employment Rights and that her dependents be included.”

In giving its reasons for the judgement, the Court of Appeal said:

The question before the IAT was not whether she could prove her ownership conclusively, but whether she had presented a prima facie case of investment which arguably could have raised her points to the necessary number of 100. The IAT did not ask itself that question before summarily dismissing her appeal.

The Court of Appeal’s note of the incorrect conclusions reached by the IAT and the wait time experienced by Mrs Jack-Chowtee (“without substantive reply from the Attorney-General,” as the Court of Appeal put it) now raises concerns about the proper processing of permanent residency applications.

In fact, the knowledge of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in her case is likely to lead to the commencement of court actions, challenging recent PR dismissals and decisions of the IAT and relevant board.

NewsAmericasNow.com