A HIGH COURT judge has ordered the Chief Immigration Officer (CIO) to forthwith grant a student’s permit to a Chinese national who is expected to sit the Secondary Entrance Assessment (SEA) examination in 2024.

On Thursday, Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams made the order as she ruled on a lawsuit filed by the child’s parents in October.

The child, 11, entered TT with her mother in 2015 on an entry visa allowing her to stay in TT for three months, and received a student’s permit in 2022, which was valid for a year. Her father had been in TT since 2007.

When the child’s parents attempted to apply for another permit, their application was refused and no reason was given by immigration officials.

According to the judicial review claim, the child is expected to sit the SEA examination in 2024. It also said the refusal to grant the permit prevented the child from continuing their education or attending school.

The child’s parents say the principal of the school their child attended told them that all non-nationals enrolled in a school must have a student’s permit according to a 2017 circular from the Education Ministry. An affidavit in the application was filed in Chinese and translated to English. The child has not been able to attend school since the term started in September.

In response to the claim, the CIO said immigration records showed the child had not applied for an extension on the entry visa and had overstayed their time in TT.

The CIO also contended it was evident the child attended school before the permit was granted in 2022 which would have been in breach of immigration regulations. It was further argued that the 2022/2023 student’s permit was improperly issued.

In her ruling, Quinlan-Williams said there was no dispute when the child entered TT, they were considered a “permitted entrant” under the Immigration Act.

She said it was open to the minister to declare that the child ceased to be a permitted entrant and order her deportation.

This was not done, the judge said.

“The minister having not made a declaration, she remained a permitted entrant.”

The judge also said in granting the permit, the CIO would have had to be satisfied with the requirements set out under the act and the regulations.

She said there was no evidence the CIO considered the relevant factors.

Quinlan-Williams also noted that the child was previously issued a permit in accordance with the regulations of the Immigration Act, so this would have permitted her to stay for a longer period than three months since a permit is valid for a year.

“It is the Chief Immigration Officer who issued the permit… There was no evidence it was unlawfully issued or cancelled.”

Quinlan-Williams said she was satisfied the CIO considered irrelevant matters when deciding not to grant a new permit.

“All the information was provided as required under the legislation.”

As she ordered the CIO to grant the permit forthwith, the judge declared that the refusal to issue the 2023/2024 permit was unlawful, unreasonable, irregular an