(1987)1987 December J 9 [A LOiZOU J1 IN T H E M A T T E R O F ARTICLE 146 OF T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N 1 2 AHMED JAMMOUL WAFA TAKEYEDDIN, Applicants. ν T H E REPUBLIC O F CYPRUS, T H R O U G H 1 2 T H E MINISTRY O F INTERIOR, T H E M I G R A T I O N OFFICER Respondents (Case No 364/86) Aliens— Refusalto renew an alien s working and residencepermit — The breadth of the discretion of the Administration — Review of case law — The Aliens and Immigration Law, Cap 105 Applicant 1,came to Cyprus forthe firsttime on th^ 15thOctober 1983 as avisitor under the name «ShaheenAhmed Mohamed"and by usingaYemen passport which was issuedat Beirut on thp 20th May 1982,and was expinng on the 19th May, 1985 The place of birthofapplicant 1 in the said passport was statedto be Aden Yemen In Apnl 1985 applicant 1,submitted on application for the renewal of his temporary resident's and employment permitby producing aSynan passport which was issued in Cyprus on 22 January 1985 in the name of Jammoul Ahmed Mohamed In this passpurt n wab stated ihdt he was bom at Salmia, Syria in 1945 On the 28th December 1984, applicant 2 applied for extension of her residence permit, and declared that she is an employee of the Ministry of Local Administration in Syna and she came to Cyprus in order to learn English She, also, declaredthat her husband is ajournalist and is employed in Syna and that she would stay in Cyprus with her cousin Shabeen Ahmed Mohamed 2088 5 1 () 15 3 C.L.R. J a m m o u l & Another v. Republic In September 1985 when she soughtrenewal ofher residence permit,she declared that she wouM stay with her husband Jammoul Ahmed, ν ' ->is applicant 1and who had previously been desenbed by her as her cousin 5 11) K) In view of alt the above, namely the productionof false particularsand the concealment of the true facts, the Immigration Officer, in the exercise of his discretion oy his letterdatedthe 8thMay 1986 informedtheapplicants that their application for residence and employment in Cyprus could not be approved Counsel for the applicants contended that the use of two passports and two different names by applicant 1 isdue to the destruction of his passport dunng the Israel invasion of Beirut in 1982. and that the contradictions are due tothe factthatshe cannot speak Englishwell andshe didnot understand the questions or her answers were not understood Held dismissing the recourse
(1)Having regard to the reasons that gave nse to the sub judice decision and to the very wide discretionary powers vested m the respondents in matters affecting entry and stay of aliens in Cyprus and tothe legal positionasenunciatedintheCaseLaw. theCourt has come to the conclusion on the matenal before it that the sub judice decision was reasonably open to the respondents 20
(2)The Court is satisfied that the respondents acted throughout in good faith and their decision cannot be faulted on any ground Also as held in the Voulpiotisv TheRepublic{\974)3CLR 313themakingoffalsestatements in the application for the permit constitutes an offence contrary to section 19
(10)(a) of Cap 105 and this reason alone constitutes a further ground on 25 which respondents were justifiedin reachingthe subjudice decision Recoursedismissed No order as to costs Casesreferredto Goulehsv The Repubhc
(1970)3 C L R 8 1 , 30 Voulpiotiv TheRepublic
(1974)3 C L R 313. Karahotas ν The Republic
(1986)3 C L R 501.and on appeal
(1987)3 C L R 1701, Amanda Marga Ltd ν Republic
(1985)3 C L R 2583. Recourse. 35 Recourse against the refusal the respondents to renew the permit ofapplicant 1 tostay and work in Cyprus and to renew the permit of applicant 2 tostay in Cyprus asa visitor D. Zavallis,for applicants. 2089 Jammoul Λ Another v. Republic
(1987)D Papadopoullou (Mrs),for respondents Cur adv vult A. LOIZOUJ. read the following judgment The applicants in thisrecourse pray for «(A)A declaration of the Courtthatthe actand/ordecision of 5 the respondents dated 8th May, 1986, by means of which on the one handthey refused torenew theTJermitof applicant 1, to stay and work in Cyprus as a Director of the Offshore Company Manar Press andPublishing Agency Ltd and, on the otherhand,they refusedto renew thepermitof applicant 10 2,tostay inCyprus asavisitor andby meansofwhichtheycall upon theapplicantstoleaveCyprus,isnullandvoidandof no legal effect whatsoever and/orcontrary to law (B)A declaration of the Court declanng null and void and contrary to law and of no legal effect the above act and/or 15 decision of the respondents {Q A declaration of the Court not affirming the above act and/or decision of therespondentsandacknowledging tothe applicants the nght of renewal of their permit to stay in Cyprus» According totheoppositionapplicant 1,cametoCyprus for the first time on the 15th October 1983, as a visitor under the name «Shaheen Ahmed Mohamed» and by using a Yemen passport which was issued at Beirut on the 20th May 1982, and was exptnng on the 19th May, 1985 Theplace of birth of applicant 1, 25 inthesaid passport was statedtobeAden-Yemen Uponhis amval in Cyprus applicant 1, was granted a temporary visitor's permit untilthe 14thJanuary
- Onthe 16thJanuary 1984, applicant 1, submitted an application for the renewal of the temporary visitor's permit and on the 28th January 1984, he applied for an 30 employmentpermitasaDirectorof theOffshore CompanyManar Pressand PublicationAgency Ltd Onthe4th February 1984, the respondents granted to applicant 1 a «temporary permit» valid untilthe 1stAugust 1984 tostay and work inCyprus as Directorof theabove offshore Company InApnl 1985 applicant 1,submitted 35 an application for the renewal of this temporary resident's and employment permit by producing a Synan passport, which was issued in Cyprus on the 22nd January 1985, in the name of 2090 20 3 C.L.R. Jammoul &Anotherv.Republic A.Lolzou J. Jammoul Ahmed Mohamed. Inthispassport itwasstated thathe was bom at Salmia, Syria in
- On the 9th December 1985, applicant 1,submittedanapplication forrenewalofhistemporary resident's and employment inCyprus permit. 5 Applicant2,isaSyriannationalandshecametoCyprusforthe firsttimeonthe29thSeptember 1984asavisitortogetherwithher daughter Linaaged8,andonarrivalshewasgranted a temporary visitor's permit until the 28th December
- When on the 28th December 1984, she applied for extension of her residence 10 permit, she declared that she is an employee of the Ministry of Local Administration inSyria and she came to Cyprusinorder to learn English.She, also, declared that her husband isajournalist and isemployed in Syria and that she would stay in Cyprus with her cousin Shaheen Ahmed Mohamed. 15 InSeptember 1985,when she sought renewal ofher residence permit, she declared that she would stay with her husband Jammoul Ahmed, who is applicant 1, and who had previously been described byheras her cousin. It is the contention of the respondents that in view of all the 20 above, namely the production of false particulars and the concealment of the true facts, the Immigration Officer, in the exercise of his discretion, by his letter dated the 8th May, 1986, informed the applicants that their application for residence and employment inCypruscould notbe approved. 25 In reply to the above factual contention of the respondents learned counsel for the applicants in his written address contended, that the use of two passportsand twodifferent names byapplicant 1,isdue tothe destruction of hispassport duringthe Israeli invasion of Beirut in
- Ashe could not secure a new 30 passport because the road toSyria was blocked byIsraelitroops, he was issued apassport bythe South Yemen Embassy in Beirut whereAden isstated tobehisplaceofbirthandhisnameisstated tobe AhmedShaheen which ishisjournalistnamebywhichheis known in Beirut. When he came to Cyprus he applied to the 35 Syrian Embassy for the issue of a new passport because of the destruction ofhisprevious one. Regardingapplicant2,hercontradictionsareduetothefactthat she cannot speak English well and she did not understand the questions or her answers were not understood. Regarding her 2091 A.LoizouJ. Jammoul &Anotherv.Republic
(1987)statement that she came to Cyprus to stay with her cousin, itis usual intheArabic language tocallthe husband a cousin. InGouielis v. TheRepublic
(1970)3C.L.R. 81, whichinteralia, deals with the refusal of a further employment permit to the applicant, T'^ntafyHides J., as he then was, held that the 5 respondent has wide discretionary powers under the relevant legislation -The Aliensand Immigration Law, Cap. 105. In Voulpiotiv. TheRepublic
(1974)3C.L.R. 313,MalachtosJ., after holding that a false statement inan application of an alien to remain in the Republic constitutes an offence contrary to section 10 19(l)(a) oftheAliensand Immigration Law,Cap.105,proceeded to state that «itgoes without sayingthat an application of an alien for a licence to remain in the Republic should always be rejected if the said alien makes a false statement or declaration in connection with the said application asinthepresent case.» 15 InKaraliotas v. TheRepublic
(1986)3 C.L.R. 501,(affirmed on appeal - vide R.A. 564, judgment delivered on the 23rd November 1987, still unreported)*, -Triantafyllides P. reviewed the Law regarding the entry of aliens in Cyprus and said the following at p.505. «Article 14oftheConstitution providesthat onlycitizensof the Republic cannot, under any circumstances, be banished or excluded from it; and Article 32 of the Constitution providesthattheRepublicisnotprecluded from regulatingby law any matter relating to aliens in accordance with 25 International Law. In my opinion, section 10 of Cap. 105 is a statutory provision which isfully consistent with Articles 14and 32of the Constitution. According to the relevant principles of International Law, 30 the reception of aliensbyaState isamatterofdiscretion; and every State isbyreason ofitsterritorialsupremacy competent to exclude aliens from its territory (see Oppenheim's International Law,8thed., vol. 1,pp. 675, 676,para.314 and Murgrove v. Chum Teeong Toy [1891]AC. 272).» 35 *Reportedin {1987)3CLR 1701 2092 3 C.L.R. Jammoul& Anotherv. Republic A. Loizou J. InAmanda Marga Ltd, ν TheRepublic
(1985)3 C LR 2583, which was a recourse against the refusal of the respondents to allow an alien to enter Cyprus and assume employment, PikisJ, said thefollowing at pp 2586-2587 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 «Counsel for the Republic referred in his address to the inherent nght of every State to exclude aliens from the country, a nght associated with temtonal supremacy A distinguished ]unst of internationallaw depicts the nghtof the State to exclude aliens as absolute In Cyprus a decision excluding an alien qualifies as an administrative act under Article 146 and as such isliable toreview The nght toreview conferred by Article 146 is most confined to nationals or citizens of the country but extends to everyone provided administrative action affects a legitimate interest of his m the sense of para 2 of Art 146 The discretion of the authonties on the other hand to exclude an alien is notabndged by the fact thatits exercise is subject tojudicial review By theterms of theAliensandImmigrationLaw, Cap 105,thediscretionof the Statetoexclude aliens isverywide, as broad as itcanbein law, consistent with the supremacy and temtonal integnty of the State, but not absolute It is subject to the bona fide exercise ofthediscretion,so long asthediscretionis exercised in good faith, the Courtwillquery thedecision nofurther An alien, subject to any nghts that may be conferred by convention or bilateral treaty, has no nght to enter the country His only nght is that an application to enter the country should be considered in good faith Acknowledgement ofany further obligation onthepartofthe State would be inconsistent with the sovereign nght of the State toexclude aliens There isnothingbefore metosuggest thattheImmigrationauthontiesactedexcept ingood faith So long as theyactingood faith theStateisthesolearbiter ofthe evaluation of thematenal beanng on an application for entry in exercise of itssovereign nght toexclude aliens » See also the separate judgment of Pikis J , on theKarabotas case (supra),RA 564 Anstovoulos Manesis in his text book Constitutional Rights Personal Liberties -4th Edition in dealing with the freedom of movement says at pp 134-135 that«the entry of Greek citizens 40 cannot be prohibited because it is a nght connected with 2093 A.LoizouJ. Jammoul &Another v.Republic
(1987)nationality. Regarding aliens, however, entry, movement, stay and settlement, in Greece there are in force various restrictions and increased control (Law 4310/1929; which are justified for reasonsofpublicsafetyororderorhealthormoregeneral national interestand which mayeven reach deportation». 5 As it appears from the contents of the relevant file of the administration, which isan exhibit before me -see note 26- and such contents fully supplement the reasoning of the sub judice decision, thereasons that ledtothe subjudice decision are: (a)Theexistenceoftwopassportsone ofYemenandoneof 10 Syria givingeach adifferent placeof birth. (b)The change ofname from Shaheen toJammoul. (c)Theoriginalstatementofapplicant2,-whoisthewifeof applicant 1 - that in Cyprus she was staying with her cousin Shaheen Ahmed Mohamed and that her husband resides in 15 Syria,whilstsubsequentlyshedeclaredthatthiscousinofhers wasand isher husband. (d) The employment of applicant 1, by a company which publishes a magazine which follows a policy on the Palestinian problem different than the one followed bySyria 20 ...(and)thedisputesbetween theArabshaveraised suspicion for hisindulging insuspiciousactivities. Having regard to the reasons that gave rise to the sub judice decision and to the very wide discretionary powers vested in the respondentsinmattersaffecting entryandstayofaliensinCyprus, 25 and to the legal position as enunciated in the above Case Law,I have come to the conclusion on the material before me that the subjudice decision wasreasonably open tothe respondents. Iam further satisfied that the respondents acted throughout in good faith and their decision cannot be faulted on any ground. 30 Also as held in the Voulpiotis case (supra), the making of false statements inthe application forthepermit constitutesan offence contrary to section 19
(10)(a) of Cap. 105 and this reason alone constitutes a further ground on which respondents were justified inreaching thesubjudice decision. 'i5 Recourse dismissed, 2094