Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545155
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 31 MAY 2026 LAW IN a significant judgment de- livered by the Court of Appeal in the names Yaneth Aldana vs Identità, the court overturned decisions by Identità and the Immigration Appeals Board to refuse a work permit to a third-country national. Aldana entered Malta legally and applied for a single work permit but his application was refused by Identità after Job- splus objected to the employ- ment application, claiming that the prospective employer was facing redundancies and al- legedly did not have sufficient work available for the employ- ee. However, the court noted that it was never properly estab- lished how Jobsplus had arrived at these conclusions in the first place. The judgment repeated- ly highlights the absence of any proper investigation or veri- fication before such a serious decision was taken against the applicant. Importantly, the court also observed that despite Jobsplus' concerns, the employer clearly continued insisting on the need for the employee's position and even went as far as assisting in the filing of the appeal itself in order to defend the employ- ment application. The Immigration Appeals Board later declared the appeal "null and void" because no for- mal grievances or detailed sub- missions had been filed in sup- port of the appeal. Before the Court of Appeal, it emerged that the appeal had ac- tually been filed by the prospec- tive employer, while the appli- cant herself had not even been properly informed of the pro- ceedings or that she was expect- ed to submit further arguments within a specific time-limit. The court took a strongly crit- ical stance towards the manner in which the authorities and the board handled the case. The appellant also raised se- rious concerns regarding the manner in which proceedings before the Immigration Ap- peals Board are conducted. She argued that while the board repeatedly relies on procedur- al principles derived from the Administrative Justice Act to justify its practices, certain fun- damental safeguards contem- plated by those same principles were, in practice, not being properly observed. In particu- lar, the appellant criticised the fact that appeals are frequently determined without any public sitting being held at all, arguing that this deprives parties of the opportunity to verify wheth- er submissions were properly inserted into the acts, to chal- lenge evidence produced by the opposing side, and to ensure that justice is not only done, but visibly seen to be done. While the court stopped short of fully endorsing every crit- icism advanced by the appel- lant, it nevertheless expressed clear concern about the board's practices and remarked that the board was increasingly adopt- ing the habit of dismissing ap- peals outright as "null" instead of hearing the parties and prop- erly establishing the facts inde- pendently. The court further stressed that both the board and the authorities should, at the very least, genuinely hear the individuals affected and independently verify the facts before reaching decisions with such serious consequences on a person's life and future in Mal- ta. The judgment also refers to concerns raised regarding the practical manner in which de- cisions are communicated. The appellant had described how individuals collecting decisions from the board's registry would allegedly find police officers already waiting with lists of re- jected cases and ready to collect passports from unsuccessful applicants. While the authorities denied there was any impropriety, the court nevertheless remarked that this practice is indeed taking place and stated that it could not ignore the serious human dimension behind such situations. In some of the strongest pas- sages of the judgment, the court stressed that individuals such as the appellant often leave behind their families, spend thousands of euros to travel to Malta, and arrive with hopes of building a better future, only to encounter closed doors and threats of re- moval instead of assistance and proper scrutiny of their circum- stances. The court openly disagreed with the board's position that the appeal simply had to be declared null because no griev- ances had been filed. Instead, the court stated that the au- thorities themselves had failed to properly perform their du- ties by relying blindly on un- verified information without independently establishing the facts or genuinely hearing the applicant. The court further stated that where concerns arise regarding a prospective employer, the au- thorities should at the very least explore whether the individual may be assisted in finding alter- native employment rather than immediately pushing them to- wards irregularity and removal. Ultimately, the court upheld the appeal, revoked both the board's decision and Identità's refusal, and ordered that the applicant be allowed to file a fresh application so that her po- sition in Malta may once again be considered and potentially regularised. The judgment stands as a strong reminder that immigra- tion procedures cannot lose sight of fairness, transparency, humanity and proper admin- istrative scrutiny when dealing with people's lives and futures. The appellant was represented by lawyer Gianluca Cappitta. Immigration authorities under fire: Court questions procedure, transparency and fairness GIANLUCA CAPPITTA Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The judgment stands as a strong reminder that immigration procedures cannot lose sight of fairness, transparency, humanity and proper administrative scrutiny when dealing with people's lives and futures