Justice ministry loses another immigration case in court

Justice ministry loses another immigration case in court

Jan 22, 2021

The case at hand was prepared by Brenda Brooks and handled in court by her associate, attorney Safira Ibrahim.

According to Brooks & Associates the plaintiff followed all the rules to regulate his stay with his wife in St. Maarten. Procedures dictate that the immigration department gives permission for such a marriage through the counsel of his native country in St. Maarten. The marriage as approved, the couple got married and then the plaintiff went off island to await a decision about his residence permit.

Unfortunately, bureaucracy and Hurricane Irma threw a spanner in the works. The application for family formation must be submitted within a year of the marriage but this proved to be impossible. “The wife was dependent on dates issued by the Census Office and then came Hurricane Irma,” Brooks & Associates writes in a press statement. The marriage was only registered after two years and subsequently the residence permit was submitted.

At first, the ministry denied the permit saying that the request was filed too late and that the wife did not have sufficient income to support her husband.

When the plaintiff appealed the decision to the minister, another reason for rejection surfaced:  the immigrant had resided for several years illegally in St. Maarten prior to the request for a residence permit. The ministry considered this to be a violation of the public order.

When the case went to the Court in First Instance, the ministry had to withdraw the argument that the wife had insufficient income. The guidelines set a gross monthly income of 2,000 guilders as the minimum and the wife could prove that she met this requirement.

The court ruled that the ministry could not use the applicant’s previous illegal stay on the island as an argument for rejection, but it still denied the permit because it held the plaintiff responsible for registering the marriage too late and for filing the request for the residence permit too late as well.

The court of appeal overruled the lower court, ruling that the delay in the marriage’s registration was not the immigrant’s fault.

The court ordered the minister of Justice to take a new decision and made clear that the previous grounds for rejection – the income-requirement, the late registration of the marriage or the illegal stay – cannot be used as reasons to deny the permit again.

The ministry has to pay legal and court fees for the plaintiff to the tune of 3,250 guilders.

https://stmaartennews.com/news/justice-ministry-loses-another-immigration-case-in-court/

Appellate Court nullifies denial director’s residency

Appellate Court nullifies denial director’s residency

Jan 22, 2021

PHILIPSBURG–On Friday, January 15, the Appellate Court in Administrative Cases agreed with a director who was denied residency because he allegedly had violated the off-island requirement.

The case was handled by Brooks and Associates law office who argued that the minister’s decision to reject the director in question was not properly motivated citing that the published policies did not in certain terms require a director to be off island for a first-time application for a residence permit.

“This is the second time a precedent has been set by Brooks and Associates in terms of the wrongful application of an off-island requirement imposed by the Minister of Justice,” stated Brenda Brooks of Brooks and Associates. The first case Brooks won at the Appellate Court regarding the rejection of a director citing the off-island requirement dates back to May 8, 2017, in which the court ruled that the off-island requirement is not an absolute rule, but merely a basic principle to which there are exceptions.

The essence of that judgment was that once someone is within their legitimate stay in St. Maarten an application for residency can be submitted without the applicant being required to leave the island and await the decision abroad.

“The decision handed down by the Appellate Court on January 15, 2021, sets a precedent just like the decision of May 8, 2017, for directors who are applying for residency, as the Appellate Court basically rejects the arguments of the minister of justice who has continuously wrongfully determined that directors of companies must be off island if they are a first-time applicant and have previously been in St. Maarten outside of their legitimate stay,” Brooks explained.

“Our office used the published procedures and guidelines to convince the court that the minister of justice has been wrongfully rejecting directors using the off-island requirement as grounds for rejection, whereas the Guide to Residency, Part I, that is published alludes to the possibility of having a director reside on island prior to obtaining residency without that illegal stay being used against the director when applying for residency.

“The Appellate Court agreed with the director in this case that it cannot be ascertained from the policy that the off-island requirement is also applicable for the purpose of employment based on directorship.

“With this recent decision from the Appellate Court, it is evident that the minister of justice over the years has been wrongfully rejecting requests without complying with the general principles of good governance, which is required as a government body established by law,” Brooks said.

The minister of justice was ordered to make a new decision in the director’s case based on the Appellate Court’s considerations in the verdict. The minister was also ordered to pay legal fees of NAf. 1,400.

The source:
https://www.thedailyherald.sx/islands/appellate-court-nullifies-denial-director-s-residency