Permanent Residency Applicant Files Court Claim Saying That The Immigration Appeals Tribunal Failed To Consider Points For His Education & Caymanian Connection
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
According to a Grand Court claim stamp dated October 23, 2025, Clarence Anthony Edwards is requesting that the decision of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal (IAT) refusing him permanent residence be quashed and that his matter be reheard. Edwards alleges that an incorrect award of points for education was made, and that the IAT failed to consider his Caymanian connection.
Background
Regarding his high school education, Edwards alleges that the IAT failed to consider and allocate points for this. Allegedly, this occurred because Edwards’ high school certificate was not certified.
The claim states that, prior to the decisions of the IAT and the Director of Workforce Opportunities and Residency Cayman (WORC), Edwards provided a copy of his high school certificate.
Concerning this, the IAT reportedly responded as follows:
The Appellant having been advised to provide proof with certification attachments and certified copies of all relevant documentation on his application form, documentation now submitted cannot be considered as it was not before the Director of WORC at the time of his/her decision.
Based on the claim, Edwards disputed the reasoning above and submitted that the Director of WORC and the IAT were both put on notice and or received proof of his high school certificate prior to their decisions.
The claim adds that the Director of WORC and the IAT should have taken his evidence into account unless there was reason to suspect that the certificate was not genuine. In the circumstances, the claim argues that it was unlawful and unreasonable not to take his uncertified high school certificate into account.
Regarding his Caymanian connection, the claim states that the Director of WORC and the IAT failed to consider and allot points to Edwards on the basis that no DNA was provided that he was the son of a Caymanian prior to their decisions.
Based on the claim, at the time he submitted his residency application, his father had not yet been granted the Right to be Caymanian. Notwithstanding this, the Director of WORC was allegedly placed on notice of the father’s immigration status and his pending decision on his right to be Caymanian application.
According to the claim, his father was granted Caymanian Status on May 16, 2024, and he provided a copy of his father’s status certificate to the Director of WORC.
Reportedly, the Director of WORC’s decision was made on September 10, 2024, some four months after Edwards’ father was granted the Right to be Caymanian.
Concerning this, the IAT reportedly said it was not “provided with conclusive proof of such relationship at the time of the hearing on the grounds”.
According to the claim, Edwards sought clarification from the IAT on why the evidence was not conclusive in his reconsideration application, but the IAT allegedly failed or refused to address this matter in its decision.
The claim argues that the Director of WORC and the IAT received proof that Edwards’ father was granted the Right to be Caymanian, and that this substantial change in circumstances should have been taken into consideration; not doing so was unreasonable and unlawful.
The claim adds that the IAT was also provided with a copy of Edwards’ paternity test report confirming that he is the son of a Caymanian prior to the IAT’s decision.
Edwards now seeks to have the IAT’s decision quashed.
Note to readers
There are several court cases in which the immigration authorities have been challenged for various reasons regarding permanent residency points. However, based on a recent decision of the Privy Council, such court cases may not be the end of the matter. For example, the Privy Council indicated that the Cabinet has the power to waive immigration requirements. Therefore, applicants who fail to obtain sufficient points under the points system may apply to the Cabinet to remain permanently in the Cayman Islands.
For a previous story about the Privy Council case, please see below:
