Court refuses to grant leave for expats

By BEVERLY PETER
THE National Court has refused to grant leave to seven expatriates who sought a judicial review of the decision by Chief Immigration Officer that cancelled their work permits.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi, in Waigani yesterday, said Kevin Smith, Brett Smith, Cameron Craig, Nicole Demosky, Thomas Tracy, Craig Bunt and Philipheri Balasingam, who were employees of Pacific Helicopters Limited, did not fully exhaust the available administrative process before coming to court.
“I am of the view that it is premature to the court to consider the merits of the applicants’ (expatriates) claims or engagement in a judicial review,” Kandakasi said.
The seven expatriates sought leave for a judicial review of chief immigration officer Stanis Hulahau’s decision to issue them an infringement notice from the Immigration and Citizenship Authority on Nov 28, 2022, Hulahau’s decision to cancel their work permits on Jan 31, and failure of Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso, as the acting minister for immigration and labour, to consider their appeal.
Kevin, Brett, Craig, Demosky, Tracy, Bunt and Balasingam, who were former employees of Pacific Helicopter Ltd under the Malan Group of Companies, claimed that On Feb 6, they were issued with the notice of cancellation of their work permits dated Jan 31, and forced to leave the country.
They claimed that they were not given opportunity to respond to the notice as they were also given the infringement notice at that time as well.
They further claimed that there were no grounds to cancel their work permits.
They then appealed to the minister responsible which was John Rosso and they haven’t got any response from him yet.
Kevin, Brett, Craig, Demosky, Tracy, Bunt and Balasingam said they needed to get their work permits to come back into the country and work in order for Pacific Helicopter Ltd to fully deliver its service to the expectation and for the national employees who were trained under them to do their work more effectively.
Kandakasi said upon the evidence presented, Kevin, Brett, Craig, Demosky, Tracy, Bunt and Balasingam had not fulfilled the requirement of exhausting all available remedies.
“The decision maker, in this instance, the minister, has not yet given a final decision. As such, the plaintiffs’ option to seek an order compelling the decision maker to make a timely determination instead of pursuing judicial review prematurely,” he said.
He added that the court emphasised that judicial review was an exceptional remedy to be employed only when all other avenues had been exhausted.
“The applicants – Kevin, Brett, Craig, Demosky, Tracy, Bunt and Balasingam – must first seek the necessary orders compelling the minister to make a final decision and once he made the decision, they can then pursue appropriate legal remedies including leave for judicial review,” Kandakasi said.