According to a Grand Court filing dated yesterday, October 12, 2023, Francis Omar Campos is asking the Court to set aside a decision of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal not to grant him permanent residence. He says the Tribunal erred in law, acted unreasonably, and breached his right to private and family life as protected by the Bill of Rights. Campos is also asking the Court to order that his application be reheard and that proper consideration be given to the market value of his investment in local company, Rock Ltd. (trading as Rock Gorgeous Hair).

The background of the matter is that, in June 2017, Campos applied for permanent residency in the Cayman Islands.

He noted in the application that his then-wife and children were his dependents.

He also “declared a minority interest” in Rock Gorgeous.

On April 17, 2018, Campos reportedly provided an update to the Chief Immigration Officer, including a valuation of business (done by Richard Mottershead of Varcay Investments (“the 1^st Varcay Report”)) dated March 19, 2018.

According to the claim, the 1^st Varcay Report showed:

The Appellant was a 20% shareholder in Rock Gorgeous.

The Appellant’s wife was a 20% shareholder in Rock Gorgeous.

A 20% shareholding in Rock Gorgeous was valued at CI$227,000.

Following the submission of the 1^st Varcay Report, Campos’ application for permanent residence was rejected in May 2018. This rejection was because he was only awarded 93 points and did not cross the 110-point threshold.

Immigration authorities reportedly implied that Campos did not receive adequate permanent residency points for his investment in a local company because “proof of investment that met the minimum requirement of CI$50,000 was not provided.”

Campos appealed the decision.

The Grounds of Appeal submitted on September 20, 2018, argued that the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board (“the Board”) “were unreasonable not to consider the update provided on 11 April 2018” by Campos, which showed that his “20% shareholding in Rock Gorgeous was valued at CI$227,000.”  It was also argued that the Board erred in law for not awarding any points for his investment.

Further, it was alleged that “The Board’s decision was unreasonable as there were no policies in place,” and “therefore, there is no consistency between decision-makers” regarding valuations of investments or business valuations, which could influence the number of permanent residency points awarded.

Concerning this, the Court claim states:

If the Appellant had been awarded points based upon:

i The Market value of 20% of the shares of On the Rock Ltd, he would have achieved more than 110 points.

ii. The Market value of 40% of the shares of On the Rock Ltd, he would have achieved more than 110 points.

ii. The value of his out of pocket expenses as claimed he would have achieved more than 110 points.

iv. An investment of more than CI$50,000 he would have achieved more than 110 points.

According to the Court claim, Campos “provided sufficient evidence that the Tribunal could be satisfied of his total investment in On the Rock Ltd.” However, the Tribunal misdirected itself as to the meaning of “total investment” in awarding permanent residency points.

Given the alleged absence of published immigration policies to address business investment valuations, alleged misdirections of the immigration authorities regarding this, and alleged errors in law, the Court will now consider whether to set aside the decision of the Tribunal and allow Campos’ matter to be reheard.

Campos’ matter is one of several cases before the Court challenging the decisions of the Board and the Tribunal for various reasons, including alleged breaches of the right to private and family life under the Bill of Rights.