(CMR) A Jamaican teacher who has been working in the Cayman Islands as an educator since 2008 has sought a court order to set aside the decisions of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and the Director of WORC after she was refused a Residency and Employment Rights Certificate.
The motion was filed on 21 December by Brady Attorneys at Law on behalf of Elysia Tara Murray-Forbes to have the decision set aside on grounds that the decision of the Tribunal and WORC to refuse was erroneous, unlawful, in breach of natural justice, and at variance with Immigration Regulations 2, showing by clear contravention and failure to take into account considerations provided for under Factors 2 and 3 of this Regulation.
Elysia Tara Murray-Forbes first made an application to the director of WORC in February 2018 but was told her application was refused as she only scored 100 points under the points system, which required 110 points.
In December 2019, she made a fresh application for residency; however, in May 2021, she was advised that she only scored 85.57 points of the 110 points required.
Murray-Forbes is contending that the points awarded were not accurately, reasonably and fairly calculated and that in relation to particular factors, no points were awarded at all, as well as there were occasions where they were not adequately considered and points fairly awarded.
The motion also stated that points were inexplicably reduced in her second application; for example, in 2018, she had 12 points for education but had no points for the same category in 2021. This was despite having a Master's degree and working as an educator in Cayman for years.
The court document also revealed that Murray-Forbes, through a joint mortgage with her spouse, had over CI$92,000 invested in local property, and according to regulations, full points would be awarded for investments over CI$50,000
In March of 2023, the appellant, through her lawyers, wrote to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal seeking a reconsideration of its decision, showing evidence of her qualifications; however, on 20 November 2023, the Immigration Tribunal responded to say the previous decision was not unreasonable, erroneous in law, a breach of natural justice nor at variance with regulations and denied her application for reconsideration.