The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Chain Wen Wei and Tang Ting Ting over the refusal of permission to enter Ireland to attend English-language courses that were being taught online during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The applicants were refused leave to land at Cork Airport on 12 December 2020 under section 4(3)(j) of the Immigration Act 2004. The provision allows an immigration officer to refuse permission if satisfied that a non-national’s entry or presence could threaten national security or be contrary to public policy.
The State policy at the time was that prospective students could not enter Ireland to pursue a course delivered remotely. Guidance issued in October 2020 said prospective students should wait until in-person tuition resumed and warned that failure to do so could lead to refusal of leave to land and registration. The judgment said the applicants and the institution they sought to attend were not unaware of the policy.
The applicants challenged the decisions by way of judicial review. The High Court dismissed their claim in 2021, and the Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal in 2023. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the scope of the public policy provision. The applicants argued that it should be read narrowly, in line with a 2011 High Court ruling, and should require grounds connected to national security and the individual’s personal conduct.
Delivering judgment on 19 December 2024, Chief Justice O’Donnell said the ordinary meaning of “public policy” covered the refusal. He described the policy as a public-interest measure, particularly given pandemic-related restrictions on travel, and said the provision was a broad ground for refusal. The Chief Justice rejected the proposed narrow reading. He agreed with Justice Woulfe that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Chief Justice also addressed the interim stay that had prevented the applicants’ removal while the case proceeded. He said applicants for judicial review are not entitled to a stay as of right, and that a respondent should ordinarily have an effective opportunity to contest an order suspending a public-law decision. He criticised the fact that the stay had continued for years without an inter partes hearing or a determination of its appropriateness.
The judgment said the High Court’s initial stay was correctly limited to allowing the matter to proceed to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not state that it made a separate order lifting the stay or directing the applicants’ removal.