Second Cuban refugee case highlights problems
Possibly buoyed by the results of this case, a second Cuban asylum seeker detained in George Town, Cayman Islands for more than a year will take his case to the Grand Court contesting, what he believes, to be a legally flawed rejection of refugee status by the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. These recent cases represent a ramping up in legal appeals by Cuban migrants.
Is due process being achieved?
Asylum applications in the Cayman Islands are beset by delays and difficulties in obtaining a fair hearing and natural justice. Migrant access to legal aid was one of five priority issues regarding asylum seeker case management set out by government of the Cayman Islands in August 2017. The Immigration Department, the Department of Home Affairs, the Prison Service and the Health Services Authority have reportedly been working on an inter-departmental follow up to these issues, some of which include the provision of a written policy and procedure manual to be given to detainees upon arrival explaining the processes, training for immigration staff on how to manage asylum seekers and refugees, more detailed on-site reporting and legal aid for migrants who go to court. AT present, detained migrants are provided a phone number to access free legal advice through the Legal Befrienders programme while legal resources provided to migrants at the appeals tribunal level are currently limited to a list of phone numbers and the goodwill of volunteers who visit the detention centre.
As many applicants do not have the financial or other resources to hire legal representation they are granted access to government-funded legal aid once they have been rejected by the volunteer-led Immigration Appeals Tribunal. This step can take a year or more and by this point many migrants may have missed their best opportunity to successfully present their cases. Additionally, appeals to the Grand Court must be made on a point of law, such as an error in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal judgment and may then be returned to that forum for rectification which can result in a “ping pong” effect as migrants bounce between institutions without receiving a final judgement on their case. Several migrants without legal aid have also attempted to lodge appeals on their own, resulting in confusion over the status of individual cases and uncertainty as to whether the appeals were filed properly if at all. Recently, at least three men who incorrectly believed their cases had been successfully appealed to the Grand Court have instead been scheduled for deportation.
