In a judgement delivered on 4 November 2026, the Court upheld an earlier decision by the Immigration Appeals Board anulling the man’s return decision and removal order. The case highlights the importance of following legal deadlines, particularly when decisions can result in someone losing their right to remain in the country.
The case began in August 2026, when immigration officials found the man at the offices of a business where he was not authorised to work. He already held a valid residence and employment permit linked to his full-time job with another company.
The authorities alleged that he was also carrying out work for a second business, contrary to the conditions of his permit. The man denied this, explaining that he used the second business’s services and had visited its offices to obtain assistance with his account and funds.
On 13 August 2026, the immigration authorities issued a return decision and removal order, requiring him to leave Malta, and placed the man in detention. He also faced an entry ban of up to three years covering Malta and the Schengen area.
An appeal and two missed deadlines
The man challenged the decision before the Immigration Appeals Board. Given that the removal documents contained only general reasons for the alleged breach, the Board instructed the immigration authorities to submit their evidence and written arguments first, so that the man could understand and respond to the accusations.
The authorities were told to file their documents by 28 August. They missed that deadline. On 31 August, the Board issued a further urgent instruction requesting the documents that same day. That deadline was also missed.
The documents were eventually submitted on 4 September, without an explanation for the delay or a request to extend the deadline.
Apart from factually challenging the allegations of unauthorised work levelled against him, the man challenged the admissibility of the immigration authorities’ submissions and supporting documents, arguing that they had been filed after the prescribed deadline. He therefore requested that the late submissions and documents be expunged from the proceedings and disregarded.
On 17 September, the Board ruled that the late submissions and supporting documents could not be considered. Without that material, the Board found insufficient admissible evidence to establish that the man had been carrying out unauthorised work. It therefore annulled the return decision and removal order, together with any entry ban.
Why the Court rejected the authorities’ appeal
The immigration authorities appealed, arguing that the Board had incorrectly changed the usual order of written submissions. Under the applicable regulations, a person challenging an immigration decision would normally produce evidence and submissions first, followed by the authorities.
The Court rejected that argument. It explained that the Board has the power to manage proceedings and, where appropriate, require the authority making an allegation to present its evidence first. In this case, the Board’s approach was reasonable because the authorities were in possession of the information used to justify the removal measures.
The Court also noted that the immigration authorities had not objected when the Board originally gave its instructions. Instead, they failed to comply with two deadlines and challenged the procedure only after the decision went against them.
The judgement emphasised that procedural deadlines exist for a reason: immigration cases should be resolved quickly, especially when serious consequences for personal liberty are involved.
Since the appeal is technically limited to a points of procedure only, the Court did not delve into whether the man was actually carrying unauthorised work or not. Rather, it confirmed that the Board was entitled to exclude the late evidence and that the removal measures could not stand on the admissible material before it.
Continued detention and eventual release
Despite winning his appeal before the Board, the man remained in detention while the authorities pursued their challenge in the Court of Magistrates.
In the meantime, the man challenged his continued detention through separate habeas corpus proceedings, arguing that he should no longer be deprived of his liberty following the Board’s decision.
The Court rejected his application, finding that his initial detention had been lawful and that the Board’s decision was not yet final because the immigration authorities had filed an appeal. The Court also explained that its powers in habeas corpus proceedings were limited and that the appropriate remedy was to seek a review of his detention before the Court of Appeal under the Immigration Act.
The situation changed on 4 November 2026, when the Court of Appeal dismissed the immigration authorities’ appeal. With the return decision and removal order definitively annulled, the Court found no basis for his continued detention. It consequently ordered his immediate release from detention.
The man was represented by Dr Gianluca Cappitta.
