On Monday April 3, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. Thaïsa Heymans took the oath as Attorney at Law before the Common Court of Justice of Curaçao, Aruba, Sint Maarten and the BES Islands during an extra-ordinary hearing, chaired by the Vice President of the Joint Court of Justice, Judge Gertjan Wouters.

In attendance at the swearing in ceremony was her mentor, Attorney Brenda Brooks, her family, friends as well wishers alongside some of her colleagues from Brooks & Associates as other local attorneys.

Attorney Heymans was born and raised in the Netherlands of Caribbean parents. She completed her primary, secondary and tertiary education in the Netherlands. During her university studies and after obtaining her Master’s Degree in International Commercial Law in June of 2011 Attorney Heymans worked at a Collection and Bailiff Agency in the Netherlands, where she was able to put in practice the Civil procedural laws that were cultivated at the university.

Attorney Heymans then went on to work in the maritime industry where she handled underwriting and settlement of damage to ships, construction equipment, damage to goods being shipped, and also damage to cables, for example, caused during drilling. Part of her duties was to formulate a legal opinion on policy cover, fact-finding investigation, debt and/or amount of damage to be paid out on claims.

After organizing a recruitment for the Dutch Caribbean Islands in the Netherlands, Attorney Heymans was hired by the Government of Sint Maarten in 2013 and she worked from December 2013 until June 2019 at the Ministry of TEATT, department of Civil Aviation, Shipping and Maritime in the function as Lawyer.

Attorney Heymans then went on to work as Legal Advisor at Bureau Intellectual Property (BIP) St. Maarten where she was responsible for drafting, reviewing and negotiating contracts and a variety of other (legal) documents. Ms. Heymans also handled legal tasks related to Intellectual Property Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Civil rights and formulated, propagated and defended policy, giving direction to rural policy and legislative processes. Attorney Heymans was also responsible for the preparation of periodic (financial) reports as well as processes related to International and National trademark registration.

Attorney Heymans joined Brooks & Associates in February 2023 where she will practice general law under the mentorship of Attorney Brenda Brooks. Brooks & Associates is elated to welcome Thaïsa Heymans to its dynamic, young and experienced team.

On March 15, 2021 the Court of First Instance handed down a decision in
which the rejection by the Minister of Justice in an immigration case was
nullified. The immigrant in question followed proper procedures to regulate
her stay with her Dutch husband in St. Maarten. The case in question is eerily
similar to a previous case in which the rejection of an immigrant was also
rejected on similar grounds. Seems to be a clear-cut case of same script
difference cast.

As per procedure, the immigrant who is a Guyanese national received
permission from the Immigration Department to marry a Dutch St. Maartener
here on Sint Maarten. This permission can only be granted once the
immigrant goes through rigorous interviews with the Immigration
Department. Once the marriage was approved and eventually done, the
immigrant following the advice of the Immigration Department and as per
procedure, left St. Maarten so that her husband could apply for her permit
for temporary residency. The husband made sure to attach to the application
evidence that his wife had left the country prior to the application.
Literally a year later the Minister of Justice rejected the application citing that
that the immigrant had resided in St. Maarten several years illegally prior to
the request for residency and that wasconsidered a violation of the public
order. The rejection also alluded to an additional argument that the immigrant
was still on the island awaiting a decision on the application despite the
Immigration Department receiving clear evidence such as a copy of a stamped
passport and travel documentation showing that the immigrant has been
abroad.

During the pleading phase before the Court of First Instance the Minister
departed from the argument that the immigrant was on the island at the time
of submission, but remained firm on her stance that the immigrant’s prior
illegal stay on the island was a violation against the public order. The Minister
of Justice also went on a tangent on the previous decision by the Appellate
Court despite not being the one who initiated appeal in that particular case,
and therefore legally speaking the Minister “agreed” with the ruling of the
Court of First Instance concerning prior illegal stay. During the hearing, the
Minister of Justice was also confronted with a myriad of similar cases where
the immigrants in those cases received a permit, insofar that they followed
the necessary procedures, yet had an illegal stay prior to their applications.
The Minister alluded to upcoming policy amendment that would serve as a
proper legal basis for the rejection, which as we all know was published on
February 19, 2021, 4 days after this case was handled.

The Court eventually rightfully ruled on March 15, 2021, that at the time that
the Minister of Justice could not legally use the previous illegal stay as a
ground for rejection as there is no published policy restricting those
immigrants from leaving the island and subsequently requesting residency
via the lawful channels.

The Court nullified the rejection, and the Minister of Justice was condemned
to make a new decision within four weeks and to pay Naf.1,550.00 in legal
fees.

The case was handled by Ashton Richardson, LL.M.of Brooks & Associates
and B&A Consultancy Services under the guidance of Brenda Brooks.

https://www.smn-news.com/st-maarten-st-martin-news/37129-court-of-first-instance-of-st-maarten-once-again-nullified-rejection-given-in-an-immigration-case-by-the-minister-of-justice.html

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.