Appeal Court asked to overturn judge’s ruling on refugees

THE Court of Appeal has been asked to overturn a judge’s declaration that obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention did not apply to Trinidad and Tobago, as they are not incorporated in domestic law.

The appeal of Justice Frank Seepersad’s ruling was filed on behalf of Venezuelan migrant Yohan Jesus Rangel Dominguez earlier this month.

In July, Seepersad settled the long-standing issue over the applicability of local immigration laws on refugees. His ruling paved the way for all migrants, asylum-seekers and refugees to be deported even if they are registered with the UN’s Refugee Agency (UNHCR). He also ruled that the principle of non-refoulement was not binding on TT.

Seepersad had been asked to consider whether local immigration legislation was compatible with this country’s international obligations to refugees.

However, Dominguez’s attorneys have filed five grounds of appeal contending that Seepersad was wrong.

The notice of appeal argues that the judge erred by not considering the “clear position demonstrated by the immigration manual, standard operating procedures, statements made by the Government to Parliament and the international community, ongoing, practice and arrangements with the UNHCR” when he held that the 1951 convention had not been incorporated into the domestic immigration framework.

“The judge erred in law in concluding that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in conformity with the 1951 Refugee Convention and therefore that the Appellant’s rights under Section 4 and 5 have not been violated.”

Dominguez’s attorneys also argue that Seepersad erred by concluding that the application of customary international law on the issue of non-refoulement (a principle that ensures refugees or asylum-seekers are not returned to their country if they are likely to suffer bad treatment) had no bearing on the constitutional rights of citizens of TT.

“Further or alternatively, even if non-refoulement is not directly applicable by way of customary international law, the judge erred in law in finding that the decision had been made lawfully and reasonably in his determination of the applicable principles applied by the minister given the gravity and importance of the decision when set against the accepted objective evidence as to risk of return and the findings of the UNHCR as to the determination of refugee status.

“The judge erred in law in finding as he did that the Government’s change in position regarding asylum-seekers from Venezuela post-2019 was not arbitrary or irrational in the absence of legislation and/or that there were logical and rational reasons to resile from any such policy or the refugee convention implementation process.

“The judge further erred in law when he concluded that the Government’s articulated approach to migrants offended neither the Constitution nor the rule of law but was a proportionate response based upon its rational and reasoned macro-economic and socio-political concerns which required decisive responses as a global pandemic was ongoing when this was an irrelevant consideration by 2023 and/or placed too much weight on this justification,” Dominguez’s attorneys contend.

The appeal also challenges the judge’s finding that National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds properly exercised his discretion in signing off on the deportation order, since, the attorneys contend, it was done without consideration of their client’s claim for international protection and against refoulement.

The Appeal Court has been asked to set aside Seepersad’s orders and grant the seven declarations Dominguez initially sought.

The man is represented by John Heath, SC, Shalini Sankar and Annesia Gunness.