The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals by two Malaysian nationals who were refused permission to land at Cork Airport in December 2020, after finding that an established government policy on online language courses could support refusal under the Immigration Act 2004.
The appellants sought to enter Ireland to attend English language courses due to begin on 4 January 2021. At the time, pandemic restrictions meant the courses would be conducted online. Immigration officers refused them permission to land under section 4(3)(j), which allows refusal where a person’s entry or presence could pose a threat to national security or be contrary to public policy.
The High Court dismissed their judicial review applications in March 2021. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that “public policy” should be read narrowly, alongside “national security”, and should concern an entrant’s personal conduct posing a serious threat to the State’s fundamental interests. They also argued that the refusal notices did not adequately explain the basis for the decisions.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Woulfe on 19 December 2024, the Supreme Court held that the words in section 4(3)(j) set out two alternative grounds: national security and public policy. It declined to limit “public policy” through the legal principle that words take meaning from their surrounding terms, finding the concepts sufficiently distinct in this provision.
The Court said executive policy can be a source of public policy where it is expressed with sufficient clarity and consistency and does not conflict with legislation. It found that the 2011 immigration guidelines, which prohibited students from coming to Ireland to undertake distance learning, met that description. Their operation was triggered in this case by the pandemic and October 2020 guidance directing English language providers to move tuition online.
The Court concluded that the immigration officers were entitled to refuse permission on public policy grounds. It dismissed the appeals, leaving the High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in place. The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed the interpretation of section 4(3)(j) and the basis for these refusals; it did not grant the appellants permission to enter.