A HIGH COURT judge has ruled that the rejection of three Venezuelan women from entering TT because they were 'likely to become a charge on public funds' in 2017 was illegal.

The orders were made on May 14, by Justice Robin Mohammed in lawsuit filed by the three women and a Trinidadian man, Gregory Bodie. The women do not speak English but had travelled to TT before without difficulty.

The four entered TT on April 24, 2017, but were detained at the Piarco International Airport and questioned. The women were denied entry and served with rejection orders. The women were removed from Trinidad around 7 am on April 27, 2017, despite a judge staying the rejection orders.

Bodie, a Trinidadian with citizenship in the United States, where he said he was usually resident, and Venezuela, having served in the South American country's army, was engaged to one of the women.

Their marriage was formalised in Venezuela in April 2017. One of the other women was his step-daughter. They came to Trinidad for a 'better wedding.'

In its defence, the State argued the women provided conflicting information to immigration officers which raised reasonable suspicion about the legitimacy of the purpose of their visit.

In his ruling, the judge said, 'It is indubitable that the Immigration Division plays a vital role in safeguarding the interests and national security of TT.

'As the gatekeepers of our nation's borders they are endowed with certain important powers in order to effectively execute their functions.'

However, he said, 'Fairness requires an immigration officer to conduct a proper assessment of an individual traveller's circumstances and their resources.'

He said there was no evidence from the State on what constituted sufficient funds.

'It thus stands to reason that in the absence of any evidence of a standard policy or criteria by which the defendant's servants determined when travellers fell into the prohibited class, the court was constrained to find that the decision to refuse entry to the claimants on this ground was unreasonable.'

Mohammed said clear guidance and training was necessary to ensure immigration officers exercised their duties and discretion effectively when examining travellers to TT.

He also held the immigration division did not engage the special inquiry provision to allow the three to argue their case.

'In this case, the immigration officers involved at all levels failed to initiate stage two of the process as mandated by the legislation and in doing so, illegally, irregularly and improperly exercised their discretion in issuing rejection orders to the claimants.'

Mohammed added, 'There is no issue that immigration officers have the power to issue rejection orders or to detain a person pending special inquiry.

'However, the law demands that there should be a transparent statement or policy of the circumstances in which an immigration officer will exercise the discretion.

'There was no evidence from the defendant that such a transparent statement or policy existed at the time or