Man Says Immigration Authorities Broke A Promise To Him Not To Consider His Overstay Record When Applying For Permanent Residency
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
In a case highlighting tensions between alleged immigration promises and enforcement, Jermaine Kevin Thomas, a Jamaican national married to a Caymanian, has launched a legal challenge in the Grand Court against decisions denying him residency rights. Thomas alleges that immigration authorities breached a key assurance not to tarnish his record after he voluntarily left the islands amid an overstay investigation, leading to what he calls an unfair rejection of his application. Thomas is seeking declarations from the court that the decisions of the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Permit Board and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal are erroneous in law, amount to a breach of natural justice, or are unreasonable.
Based on the claim, Thomas began working as a mobile car washer in March 2021 with an individual he knew as “Kenneth”. Reportedly, Thomas believed that Kenneth had taken out a work permit for him.
The claim alleges that, in late 2021, Thomas became suspicious and sought confirmation from the immigration authorities that he had a work permit. Thomas was informed that no such work permit existed.
By March 2022, it was understood that the authorities had started investigating Thomas’s overstaying in the Cayman Islands.
Reportedly, in April 2022, Thomas was served with a document signed by the Director of CBC entitled “Notice of Intent to issue a Removal Order” (“the Notice”).
The Notice warned Thomas that he was subject to removal and at risk of being removed on April 28, 2022. The bottom of the Notice stated:
Warning
If you are ordered removed, CBC is required to physically remove you from the Cayman Islands, and you will be declared a prohibited immigrant in accordance with Section 109(e) of the Act and be banned from returning.
If you leave voluntarily and before the final removal order, you will avoid having any negative annotations recorded on your immigration record which may impact any future immigration applications. [emphasis added]
Reportedly, Thomas left the Cayman Islands on April 28, 2022, acting in reliance upon the above Notice.
In May 2022, a work permit application by Andrea Rivera T/A Super Clean Car Wash seeking to employ Thomas was denied by WORC on the basis that it was not in the best interests of the community to grant the permit due to his overstaying.
On July 15, 2022, Thomas was married to Andrea Rivera, a Caymanian and subsequently applied for a Residency and Employment Rights Certificate (RERC) as the Spouse of a Caymanian in September 2022.
On September 19, 2023, the RERC application was rejected.
One basis for the rejection was that the Board noted Thomas violated the Immigration Law due to overstaying in the Cayman Islands for over twelve months.
Reportedly, Thomas appealed the Board’s decision to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, but was rejected in a decision dated November 7, 2025.
Thomas is now appealing this rejection, saying that the decisions of the immigration authorities amount to an error of law, were unreasonable, or contrary to the rules of natural justice on the basis that:
** The authorities appear to have relied upon negative annotations which were recorded on Thomas’s immigration record.
**Thomas had a legitimate expectation that no such negative annotations would be recorded against him, thus rendering the decision unreasonable.
**Neither the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Permit Board nor the Immigration Appeals Tribunal considered Section 38(9) of the Immigration (Transition) Act (2022 Revision)
**Neither decision is sufficient
**The Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Permit Board and Immigration Appeals Tribunal misdirected themselves.
The claim contends that the Cayman Status & Permanent Residency Permit Board should have proceeded on the basis that there were no negative annotations on Thomas’s immigration record and should have reached a decision without considering them and relying upon them.
Thomas now seeks declarations from the court that the decision of the IAT be quashed and that his matter be reconsidered in a fresh hearing without any consideration of the fact that he overstayed.
The outcome of this case could set precedents on how immigration promises are enforced and the weight given to overstays in family-based applications.
