The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the Immigration Appeals Board in the case of an Indian national whose work-related visa was revoked after his Approval in Principle letter expired while he was still completing the administrative process required to regularise his stay in Malta.
In a judgement delivered by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff upheld the appeal filed by Rabin Mishra against Identità and revoked the Immigration Appeals Board’s decision which confirmed Identita’s decision. The Court ordered that Mishra be given the opportunity to submit a fresh application for a Single Permit so that his position may be regularised, provided that it is established that such an application may lawfully proceed.
Mishra had secured employment with an employer in Malta while still in India and Identità issued an Approval in Principle letter which allowed him to proceed to Malta to complete the application process. The approval was valid for 180 days and was due to expire on 22 July 2024. He subsequently applied for the visa required to travel to Malta, but the visa was only issued on 10 May 2024, a full 108 days after the Approval in Principle had been issued. This effectively left him with only 72 days to travel to Malta and complete the remaining requirements.
Once in Malta, Mishra was required to complete a number of additional steps, including medical screening, insurance and accommodation formalities, before completing his biometric registration. His biometrics appointment was eventually fixed by Identità for 13 August 2024, by which time the Approval in Principle had already expired. On the same day, his visa was revoked on the ground that justification for the purpose and conditions of his intended stay had not been provided.
The Immigration Appeals Board subsequently rejected his appeal, essentially accepting the authorities’ position that the expiry of the Approval in Principle meant that the basis for his visa had fallen away.
The Court of Appeal, however, strongly disagreed with that approach.
Mr Justice Mintoff observed that Mishra had no control over the time taken for the visa to be issued or over the dates on which the authorities scheduled the necessary appointments. The Court held that he should not be placed in an irregular position as a result of delays which were outside his control. It found that Mishra had done what was expected of him in order to regularise his position, while the authorities had failed to complete the process in time.
The Court was particularly critical of the reason given for revoking the visa. It noted that Mishra had already undergone preliminary vetting and had been granted both an Approval in Principle and a visa on the basis of his intended employment. Against that background, the Court considered it unreasonable to later state that the purpose and conditions of his stay had not been justified.
It further held that, at the very least, Mishra should have been informed that he needed to seek an extension or renewal rather than being allowed to reach a position where the administrative process could no longer be completed. The Court concluded that the reasoning behind the visa revocation was insufficient and inadequately substantiated.
The Court also upheld Mishra’s argument on proportionality, stressing that administrative law should not operate in a manner which unnecessarily places individuals in legal limbo because of shortcomings on the part of the authorities. It emphasised that compassion and proper consideration of the human consequences of administrative decisions are not inconsistent with the rule of law.
On the separate complaint that the Immigration Appeals Board had not held an oral hearing, the Court did not find a violation, holding that the opportunity to make written submissions was sufficient in the circumstances.
The judgement therefore provides an important reminder that immigration authorities must not only apply deadlines, but must also consider whether an applicant’s failure to complete a process was genuinely within his control, and whether the reasons given for an adverse decision are clear, rational and proportionate.
The appellant was represented by Dr Gianluca Cappitta.
