The High Court has refused relief to a Malaysian woman who challenged the refusal of permission to land at Cork Airport after she arrived to attend an English-language course that was being delivered online.
The judicial review was brought against the Minister for Justice and the Garda Commissioner. The applicant, who was visa-exempt, sought to enter Ireland on 12 December 2020 for a course due to begin on 4 January 2021. The judgment says she was travelling with another Malaysian woman, Ms Ting, who intended to take the same course.
An immigration officer refused permission to land because the course would be conducted online. The applicant was served with a notice under section 4(4) of the Immigration Act 2004, which cited the statutory ground that her entry or presence could threaten national security or be contrary to public policy. She also received a section 14 notice requiring her to stay overnight at the Four Seasons in Kanturk, surrender her passport and report to Cork Airport the following morning.
The applicant argued that the section 4(4) notice should have stated the factual reasons for the refusal, that reasons had not otherwise been provided, and that the refusal was not justified on public-policy grounds. She also argued that the notice was defective because it cited national security and public policy as alternatives without specifying which applied.
Justice Tara Burns held that section 4(4) requires written notice of the statutory ground for refusal, not written reasons explaining why that ground applies. She found that a reason had been communicated orally: the course was online. Taken together, the oral explanation and written notice met the obligation to give reasons.
On public policy, the judge considered conflicting High Court decisions and concluded that, in this case, the term covered Government policy regulating entry by non-EEA students. She said the policy against admitting students to undertake online English-language courses was a legitimate basis for refusing permission to land on an individual basis. The court therefore found that the refusal was permitted.
The judge also rejected the challenge to the notice’s wording. Although that point had not been addressed in written submissions and was raised only at the end of the hearing, she held that quoting the statutory wording, including its alternative grounds, did not invalidate the notice.
The court refused the relief sought, finding that the challenges to the section 4(4) and section 14 notices had not been made out. Because the respondents had pleaded additional reasons that did not ultimately prove to be reasons for the refusal, the applicant was ordered to pay 70% of the respondents’ costs, with the amount to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree.