Immigration litigation costing tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars: Department Consistently

By FRED LIVERMORE

For the last four years, the Immigration Department of the Ministry of National Security has been consistently losing cases before the courts, and this is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why and who is to blame?

That has been the Department’s trademark before the courts. As a lawyer turned politician, is Stuart Young, the Minister of National Security really concerned about the inefficient decision-making processes of this department that is making the news every day? How is the Office of the Attorney General looking at this matter? In speaking to confidential sources from the Immigration Department, as well as former senior Immigration officials, and attorneys at law practising in the Immigration field, many critical factors appear to have a deep stranglehold on the development of the Department, the smooth running and efficiency of this national security unit. Now that is not to state that there are no good officers there. But there is a consistency in losing cases by the Immigration department and this is due to several factors.

Reasons Proffered

Included amongst these factors is first, an archaic, out dated and irrelevant Immigration Act, second, a lack of a professionally trained, competent and qualified cadre of immigration officers, whose jobs are primarily making decisions, and finally, a dysfunctional management team caught in a bureaucratic maze of stereotype power, with a deep lacunae in the understanding of human rights, administrative law and international obligations, all related to the effective administration of the Immigration Act. As a matter of fact, immigration officers are not taught to think with discretion. Let me get to the point. One does not become a highly trained and experienced immigration officer after a one or two-weeks induction crash course. You will crash on the course because what is required at ports of entry and inland offices is a deeper understanding of the complex migration issues and situations that shall continue to arise all the time. There is another darker side to the manner and way of how the Immigration Department makes decisions by importing new criteria and creating their own policies to suit their own purposes. Immigration officers are not above the law and are not a law unto themselves even though some of them behave that way, not knowing that everything is temporary.

First Case

For the purposes of this article, let us examine three recent judgments, and you. the reader will decide how this Department really functions. First, in the matter of Antiguan national, Troy Thomas,” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2019-00888 BETWEEN TROY THOMAS Applicant ANDTHE CHIEF IMMIGRATION OFFICER Before the Honorable Mr. Justice V. Kokaram and dated Wednesday 13 March, 2019. In this case, Mr. Thomas was being held indefinitely at the Immigration Detention Centre, Aripo pending some outstanding criminal matters. Justice Kokaram ordered Thomas’ release by stating that “Detention under the Immigration Act cannot be indefinite. Such administrative powers of detention are to be exercised strictly within its statutory remit and for a reasonable period of time. In this case, the power to detain is linked to the execution of a deportation order. The immigration authorities must demonstrate that its powers of detention were exercised lawfully and the period of detention limited to that reasonably necessary to effect that deportation under the Immigration Act. It is in proceedings such as these that the immigration authorities are called upon to account for the lawful use of power prescribed by the Immigration Act and specifically to demonstrate that the power to detain existed and that it was lawfully exercised for a detention which is for a period reasonably necessary to effect that statutory purpose.”

Very importantly and a critical point here as stated by the learned judge, “On 22nd April 2016 he (Thomas) was detained at the Immigration Detention Centre for breach of the Order of Supervision. Pursuant to a letter dated 26th July 2016, the then Minister of National Security, the Honorable Edmund Dillon ordered his release. He remained incarcerated for forty-three (43) days after the Minister had directed his immediate release. He thereafter commenced proceedings in the High Court for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum. Permission was granted by order of Boodoosingh J dated 6th September 2016 to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus as Subjiciendum directed to the Chief Immigration Officer. He was thereafter released from the Immigration.

Detention Centre on 7th September 2016. Critically, the judge in his guidance to Immigration, pointed the following “The power of detention must be exercised in accordance with established administrative law principles of rationality, fairness and reasonableness.” “Although a high level of co-operation is expected between the Immigration authorities and the law enforcement authorities, there is in fact no power to detain under sections 14, 15 or 29 of the Immigration Act pending the determination of criminal proceedings.” That says a lot in the understanding and interpretation of the Act by Immigration Officers and leaves very much to be desired. Can you imagine a decorated Major General, turned Minister of National Security, gives an instruction to the Chief Immigration Officer ordering Thomas immediate release, and this is done 43 days later? Is that Immigration officer still on the job Minister Young? That is gross insubordination and total disrespect to the Honorable Minister of National Security. And the truth be told, there is no reason to doubt that many National Security Ministers and officials who rely on qualified expertise from their public servants obtain very unqualified and deficient advice as they are not simply qualified in this highly specialized field to be given such professional advice. If that is not a true statement, why was the case lost?

Second Case

In the matter of Hafiz Rashid, CV2017-01513, v, the Chief Immigration Officer and the Minister of National Security, and by way of understanding the case, Hafiz Rashid and his wife came from India to Trinidad and Tobago over fifteen years ago on missionary permits and have never flagrantly abused their privileges or stay in this country. This religious scholar has three children all born in Trinidad and Tobago, and as such have rights to live here, even though they are minors.

An application was made for residence and it was refused, but according to the judge, “the Minister left it open to consider such an application favorably at a later date. Quite unfortunately, when their extension was up and they went to immigration, their passports were seized, and they were told by the Ag Chief Immigration Officer to report to Piarco International Airport on 30/04/2017with return tickets to their country. Justice Kokaram found that the decisions made were irrational, illegal, unconstitutional and procedurally improper. This coming from an Ag Chief Immigration Officer. Then what happens to her juniors? Can you imagine the mess in which this Department is sitting? Again, here demonstrates the gross incompetence of unqualified, highhanded use of power, arrogance and extremely poor decision making. The public now has to bear the costs for damages. Had this Department been organized differently, trained professionally, all officers certificated in the key areas of what is required in law to make a sensible and unprovoked decision, that would not have happened.

Third Case

According to the Trinidad Guardian, a High Court judge has granted a one-week stay in T&T to a 22-year-old Venezuelan national who landed at Piarco International Airport last Thursday but was initially denied entry by Immigration Division officers. However, in an unusual twist to the case, Venezuelan national Marimer Jose Gonzalez Paloma, initially “disappeared” after she landed as she was not seen or heard from by any of her relatives or close affiliates. It was not until a writ of habeas corpus was filed in the Port-ofSpain High Court, based on the information that she was missing, that she was finally presented to the court by Immigration officials. The matter was heard by Judge Joan Charles on Saturday at 11 am and was against the Chief Immigration Officer and Piarco Air Services Ltd as the agent of Turpial Airlines.

What has happened here with Paloma’s “disappearance” is not the first of its kind, it is what happens when powers are abused to suit officers’ own contrivances. There is also a dark side to Immigration that the general public may not be aware of. Check the assets base and their monthly salaries. Far too long, the government has turned a blind eye to a Department that needs close monitoring, increasing security, installation of surveillance cameras in offices, keeping of immigration stamps in a vault instead of allowing them to take it home, and much more. Power appears to make the Immigration officers believe that they cannot be caught. The truth is, if former Minister Dillon had to wait 43 days for the Ag Chief Immigration Officer to carry out an order, what will happen to Minister Young? He will get old waiting! One of the old tricks Immigration practices on a Minister, is when a Minister has to visit a port of entry or inland office on a specific day, the Immigration officers ensure the day before that all is well with their officers in charge so that there appears to be no problem. But that is not the reality, Minister Stuart Young. Do not continue to take” basket” or you will be another Chin Lee. Just a reminder Minister Stuart Young, so that you know that this article is an eye opener to you. In the case of Gerard Scott, CV2016-04122 a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, in a decision rendered by Justice Ricky Rahim on November 29, 2018, the Attorney General had to pay Gerard Scott over $300,000.00 and counting for false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and breach of his constitutional rights.