According to a Notice of Originating Motion filed with the Grand Court on March 5, 2024, Sidian Dacia Brown, a woman married to a Caymanian, is seeking an order from the Court to have the refusal of her Permanent Residence and a Residency and Employment Rights Certificate (“RERC”) application reconsidered by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. Brown alleged several matters, including that the decision of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the law, and the decision amounted to a breach of Brown’s Section 9 rights as protected by the Bill of Rights. A further allegation is that the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board erred in its judgment by implying that the application was incomplete and not in accordance with the law.
Based on the Motion, Brown applied for a RERC on October 6, 2021. In response, she received a deferral letter on February 14, 2023, asking her to provide further information.
On February 21, 2023, her attorney allegedly submitted further information on her behalf, including pay slips, employment letters, bank statements, income and expense statements, a copy of a lease agreement, utility bills, receipts for school payments for her child, and a child support letter.
However, on July 17, 2023, the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board refused her RERC application, “stating that the application was incomplete.”
Brown appealed this decision on July 19, 2023. In the notice of appeal, she stated that the requested documents were provided, and therefore, “this decision is erroneous and unreasonable.”
The Immigration Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal on February 6, 2024, after it concluded that the decision of the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board was not erroneous or unreasonable since no evidence was found of updated documentation requested by the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board, including updated pay slips, employment letters, and bank statements.
According to the Motion, Brown maintains that the requested documents were provided.
Two possible scenarios which may explain the circumstances were set out in the Motion as follows:
Her attorney provided the February 21, 2023 letter and attachments to WORC, however the attachments were mislaid by WORC or not provided to the Board. If so, it is alleged that Brown is not responsible for this.Alternatively, it is alleged that if Brown’s attorney provided only the February 21, 2023 letter to WORC and did not include the attachments, Brown is not responsible for this default.
Regarding these scenarios, the Motion alleges that “If it is the case that the Board were in receipt of the letter of 21 February 2023 and the attachments, it is contended that they have acted so unreasonably in not considering this information that the decision amounts to an error of Law.”
It is further alleged that if it is the case that the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board was “only in receipt of the letter of 21 February 2023 and not the attachments,” it is contended that the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Board “acted so unreasonably in not deferring the application for the information requested that their decision amounts to an error of law.”
The Immigration Appeals Tribunal faces similar allegations that it acted unreasonably and erred in law.
Concerning this, the Motion states that “the decision should be quashed” and orders be made so that Brown’s application can be reheard in accordance with the law.
