Chang Hu v Chief Immigration Officer and Ministry of National Security; Cheng v Chief Immigration Officer and Ministry of National Security

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Des Vignes, J.
• Judgment Date: 12 August 2013
• Neutral Citation: TT 2013 HC 230
• Docket Number: CV3279 of 2013; CV 3280 of 2013
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Date: 12 August 2013

High Court

des Vignes, J.

CV3279 of 2013; CV 3280 of 2013

Chang Hu

and

Chief Immigration Officer and Ministry of National Security

Cheng

and

Chief Immigration Officer and Ministry of National Security

Appearances:

Mr. Navindra Ramnanan for the claimants

Mr. Kashka Hemans and Mr. Randall Hector for the defendants

Judicial Review - Leave to apply for judicial review of decision to deport claimants — Whether failure to receive official notification in prescribed form rendered deportation order unfair, illegal or a breach of natural justice — Failure to issue notification was an irregularity — Proceedings not null or void — Leave to apply refused — Regulations 26 (5) — Immigration Act, Section 27 (3) and 31 (3).

Des Vignes, J.

1 Section 27 (3) of the Immigration Act provides that the decision of the Minister on an appeal shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Further, Section 30 of the said Act provides as follows:

“Subject to section 31 (3) no Court has jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or Order of the Minister, the Chief Immigration Officer, a Special Inquiry Officer or an immigration officer had, made or given under the authority of and in accordance with this Act relating to the detention or deportation of any person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago or is a resident.”

2 Notwithstanding these provisions, the Court is entitled to inquire into a decision of the Chief Immigration Officer if the applicant can establish that there has been a breach of natural justice in reaching a decision. [ AG v. Lopinot Limestone Ltd (1984) 34 WIR 299]

3 The crux of the applicants' cases is that they did not receive official notification in the prescribed Form, namely Form 32, and that as a consequence of the breach of this procedural requirement the execution of the deportation order is unfair, illegal or a breach of natural justice. It is necessary, therefore, for the Court to consider: (1) the scheme, object and importance of this requirement; (2) whether it is strictly or substantially carried out; and (3) the prejudice to the applicants and whether it is such as to cause unfairness or breach of natural justice amounting to miscarriage of justice. [HCA No. 2581 of 1993, Christopher Holder v. Kenneth Leila & Ors per Bharath 1 at p. 8; Lau v. Percy [1960]...