'80% error rate' in Palestinian visa refusals may point to significant number of wrongful denials, court told

However, lawyers for the minister for justice Jim O'Callaghan pushed back on the suggestion that there was a high 'error rate', arguing that recent reversals of visa refusals were based on new documents, and did not constitute errors in the initial decisions. File picture

A demonstrable “error rate” in decisions to refuse visa applications by Palestinians seeking to pursue university degrees in Ireland may mean that a significant number of students have wrongly been denied visas, the High Court has heard.

However, lawyers for the minister for justice pushed back on the suggestion that there was a high “error rate”, arguing that recent reversals of visa refusals were based on new documents, and did not constitute errors in the initial decisions.

The arguments came as legal actions taken by 40 Palestinian students refused visas by the minister were mentioned before Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan on Friday for the purposes of case management.

This week, Mr Justice Anthony Barr overturned a decision to deny a visa to Ms Shaymaa Abudalu (aged 20) after he held that there were “significant and demonstrable errors” in the refusal. Ms Abudalu, who lives in Gaza, was awarded a fully funded scholarship to study engineering at University College Cork, but was denied a visa in July on various grounds.

Earlier this month, three Palestinian students were granted visas following an expedited appeals process, reversing earlier decisions to refuse. A fourth Palestinian student lost an expedited appeal.

The appeals were expedited by the Department of Justice following a settlement agreement during the trial of judicial review challenges taken by the four students against the minister’s refusal of their visa applications.

Today's hearing

At Friday’s hearing, Sarah Jane Hillery, barrister for several students, submitted that Ms Abudalu’s case and the expedited appeals demonstrated an “80% error rate” in the minister’s decision on the visa applications.

Ms Hillery, instructed by Phoenix Law, submitted that if this “error rate” arises “across the board”, a significant number of students denied visas should have been successful in the applications.

Counsel told the judge that eight solicitors’ firms had written together to the Chief State’s Solicitor’s Office seeking an urgent review of the visa cases in light of the judge's findings in Ms Abudalu’s case.

The errors in Ms Abudalu’s case were that it was wrongly asserted that certain financial documentation had not been included in her visa application, and that certification Ms Abudalu provided relating to her proficiency in English had not been considered by the application decision-maker.

Eoin Carolan, barrister for the State, rejected arguments about an “error rate”, noting the expedited appeals to the refusals were “de novo”, and based on new material.

Counsel said his side had asked for clarity on whether students with live judicial review challenges still had offers of a university place open to them. Counsel said this was relevant to the urgency and potential mootness of the cases.

The judge directed that students’ solicitors write to the minister’s side in any cases where factual errors in the refusal decisions have been identified. In these cases, an early review by the minister may obviate further legal proceedings, the judge noted.

The judge directed the students’ solicitors to write to the minister in relation to the status of their offers of university places this academic year. The cases will return next month.