Chinese couple blocks possible deportation

A CHINESE couple has successfully blocked the Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) from holding a special inquiry which could have led to their immediate deportation.

In a recent ruling, Justice Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell ruled that Shoa Bin Yang and his wife Hui Kuan Zhou had succeeded in proving that the CIO “ought not to have initiated and continued” the special inquiry against them while their application for permanent residency was pending before the Minister of National Security.

The couple had asked the court to review the CIO’s decision to hold the special inquiry under section 23 of the Immigration Act and for orders to quash the decision and to stay any proceedings that would have possibly resulted in their detention or deportation.

Shoa Bin Yang has lived in Trinidad and Tobago for the past 25 years and his wife for 12. They have two children who are citizens and attend school here.

He entered TT in July 1995, on a Chinese passport, and applied for permanent residency on May 4, 2005.

In June 2006, his application was refused because he allegedly worked without a work permit. However, the judge pointed out in her ruling no such report was presented.

In July 2007, Shoa Bin Yang asked for his application for residency to be reconsidered and he said he was told he had to leave the country and re-enter.

Immigration records presented to the court showed an approved visa dated October 12, 2007.

He returned to China at the end of that month and returned to TT on January 26, 2008. His wife came to TT on July 11, that year. They were married on July 13 and while in TT, Shoa Bin Yang registered two restaurants, although he claimed they were never operational.

He again made an application for permanent residence on March 12, 2012, and he and his wife claimed she did too although no date of her application was provided to the court.

On November 8, 2012, they were detained for breaching the Immigration Act. Shoa Bin Yang was held for overstaying and working without a work permit while his wife was held for overstaying. She was, however, put on an order of supervision.

On November 12, 2012, Shoa Bin Yang paid a security bond and was released from detention in December. He, too, was put on an order of supervision. Their passports were kept by the immigration division.

In February 2013, Shoa Bin Yang applied for residency and a special inquiry was held for them in November when Shoa Bin Yang admitted to working without a permit. At the inquiry, the couple was granted voluntary departure and they left TT on December 9, traveling to Guyana and returning that same day.

They were granted re-entry until March 2014. On November 21, 2017, they were interviewed on their residency applications. It was alleged by the division they once again overstayed their time and their last extension was valid until June 2016. They were again put on orders of supervision and when interviewed the next day, they admitted they failed to apply for further extensions.

The CIO then declared that the couple “ceased to be permitted entrants as defined by the Immigration Act” and another inquiry was held on October 24, 2019, but there were several adjournments.

In January 2020, the couple’s attorneys sent a pre-action protocol letter to the CIO indicating their intention to apply for judicial review if the special inquiry continued.

Later that month, they received fresh orders to show cause and were given notice of deportation proceedings against them. They then applied for judicial review and alleged the CIO continued to set dates for their special inquiry in March and April 2021.

In reviewing their complaint, the judge had to determine if the CIO should have waited for a decision from the minister on their permanent residency applications before holding a special inquiry and if she wrongfully exercised her power to hold once in the absence of a declaration by the minister that they ceased to be permitted entrants as provided for in the Act.

In her ruling on the first issue, the judge said although the couple had flouted local immigration laws, the special inquiry should not have been convened while their application for residency was pending before the minister.

She granted judgment in their favour on this point.

However, Donaldson-Honeywell rejected the couple’s arguments on the second point since the CIO had the power to declare a person as having ceased to be a permitted entrant because of the provisions of the Delegation of Powers by the Minister to Efficiently Deport Immigrants Order of 1986.

“The claimants have succeeded in proving that the defendant ought not to have initiated and continued the special inquiry proceedings against them while their application for permanent residency was pending before the minister,” she ruled.

The judge quashed the CIO’s decision to continue with the special inquiry; granted an order of prohibition preventing any such proceedings which would allow for their detention or deportation until their residency application was determined; an order prohibiting the CIO or immigration officers from “harassing or detaining” them until their application was determined and granted an order stopping the CIO from committing any acts that could render the minister’s exercise of discretion in relation to their pending application nugatory.

The expiration of their orders of supervision was also stayed.

The couple was represented by attorneys Saddam Hosein and Kavita Sarran while attorneys Maria Belmar-Williams and Svetlana Dass represented the CIO.