Cayman Resident Challenges Permanent Residency Refusal in High-Stakes Grand Court Appeal
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Randy Colin Gladstone, a Cayman Islands resident, has filed a comprehensive appeal in the Grand Court against the Immigration Appeals Tribunal’s rejection of his permanent residency application. The five-page Notice of Originating Motion, dated November 3, 2025, and stamped November 11, accuses the tribunal of procedural errors, irrational decision-making, and potential breaches of constitutional rights, seeking not only to overturn the refusal but also a declaration that the process violated core principles of fairness and human rights.
Background
For those unfamiliar with Cayman’s permanent residency points system, applicants must score at least 110 points across factors like age, career, education, financial stability, and community ties to qualify for permanent residency.
As a first claim, Gladstone, represented by attorneys at Brady Law, argues that the tribunal was wrong in law in allocating zero permanent residence points for his investments.
Regarding how points should be considered under the points system, the rules state as follows:
In assessing an applicant’s local investments under (I) and/or (II) below, points shall be awarded taking into account the amount of the applicant’s monetary investment relative to his actual means.
I. Investment in property in the Islands and/or
II. Investment in a locally licensed company
Reportedly, the tribunal declared that it “did not award points under this factor to the Appellant as proof of his monetary investment over $50,000.00 such as bank transfer/receipts or renovations/improvements on property located in Lower Valley, Block32E Parcel 176 was not provided.”
However, the claim filed on behalf of Gladstone states that the information was provided as fresh evidence and that the tribunal unlawfully breached the Immigration (Transition) Act 2022 by allegedly failing to take it into account.
The claim added that, in addition to being wrong in law, the tribunal’s decision was unreasonable and at variance with the regulations.
Secondly, the claim argues that the tribunal acted unreasonably, unlawfully, and irrationally when it considered Factor 4(b) of the immigration rules.
Factor 4(b), which relates to points awarded for salary and income, states as follows:
(1) An applicant must prove that he has sufficient resources through income and salary to support himself and any dependants accompanying him. Also his ability to provide sufficient funds for his and their healthcare, education, accommodation and maintenance is of paramount importance for prospective long term residents.
(2) When determining the income bracket into which an applicant falls his gross income minus an amount for each dependent child shall be used. In the case of each accompanying child of compulsory school age who is not Caymanian, CI$15,000 per annum shall be deducted. If the dependent child is not accompanying, CI$2,500 will be deducted.
In Gladstone’s case, he reportedly became the father of twins in December 2014. Regarding this, the claim states that the immigration authorities deducted $30,000 ($15,000 per child) from his total salary and income.
Arguing against the deduction, the claim states that Gladstone never indicated that the twins were to accompany him. In the circumstances, Gladstone’s lawyers say that the tribunal’s decision was unreasonable, unlawful and irrational in all the circumstances; consequently, it adversely affected Gladstone’s permanent residency points award.
The claim further alleges that the tribunal failed to adequately consider Gladstone’s rights under the Cayman Islands constitution. Here, it is said that the tribunal’s alleged failures resulted in a breach of natural justice and section 24 of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009.
Lastly, the claim alleges that the tribunal’s decision was erroneous in law and that the tribunal’s decision-making process was a “sham exercise,” as it appears that no consideration was given to the individual merits of the clearly stated grounds of appeal.
The claim ultimately asks the court to set aside the tribunal’s decision.
Note to readers
Based on a recent judgment from the Privy Council, applicants who fail to obtain 110 points under Cayman’s permanent residency point system may apply to the Cabinet for a waiver of immigration requirements, thereby allowing such persons to remain indefinitely in the Cayman Islands. It is unclear whether the Cabinet has considered the number of applications that may be submitted to it before the new immigration rules come into effect in 2026. They may, in fact, be grandfathered in and unaffected by any new rules.
For an article and a copy of the above-mentioned Privy Council case, please see the link below:
