The High Court has refused a Malaysian student’s application to overturn a decision denying her permission to enter Ireland, finding that the refusal was permitted because the English language course she planned to attend would be held online.
The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Tara Burns on 23 March 2021. The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal and a related notice requiring her to remain at the Four Seasons in Kanturk overnight, surrender her passport and report to Cork Airport the following morning. She also sought to prevent her removal from the State.
The applicant arrived at Cork Airport on 12 December 2020 intending to take an English language course due to begin on 4 January 2021. The course was to be online. Government guidance issued during the Covid-19 restrictions advised prospective students to wait until in-person tuition resumed, while 2011 immigration guidelines did not permit students to enter Ireland to take distance-learning courses.
The applicant disputed receiving the written refusal notice required by section 4(4) of the Immigration Act 2004. The judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the immigration officer had given it to her and that she had misplaced it. The notice stated that her entry or presence could pose a threat to national security or be contrary to public policy.
The applicant also argued that the notice was defective because it did not explain the reasons behind that ground. The court held that section 4(4) required the ground of refusal to be stated in writing, but did not require written reasons explaining why the ground applied. It found that reasons had been communicated orally and that the applicant understood why entry was refused.
The court considered conflicting High Court decisions on the meaning of “public policy” in section 4(3)(j). It concluded that the provision could cover government policy regulating entry, including the policy against admitting non-EEA students to take online English courses. The judge held that the refusal was permitted on that basis.
The court rejected the challenges to the refusal and the related notices, and refused the relief sought. It ordered the applicant to pay 70% of the respondents’ costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree. The judge said that further reasons advanced by the respondents had not ultimately been reasons for the refusal, so it was not appropriate for the applicant to bear all the costs.