Judge says three-day migrant appeal deadline is far too short

A Court of Appeal judge has criticised the Immigration Appeals Board for repeatedly throwing out migrants’ appeals as time-barred without examining the circumstances of each case, in a judgment that overturned one such ruling and ordered the case reheard.

Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff said the three-working-day window for third-country nationals to challenge a rejected single permit application was already far too short, especially for vulnerable foreigners with limited means and who risk deportation over a single misstep.

He also warned that the board “frequently” decides that appeals have been filed late without first taking stock of the circumstances of a case.

The judgment, handed down on June 24, revoked an October 2025 ruling in which the board had declared the appeal of a Colombian national null because it was lodged too late.

The court ordered Identità, the agency in charge of single permits and visas, to consider the fresh work-permit application she intends on submitting.

The woman had entered Malta legally on a valid visa and was offered a job while in the country. Her prospective employer applied on her behalf for a single permit based on employment but later withdrew the application without notice or explanation.

On June 6, 2025, she was told her application had been refused. She appealed on June 13.

In its decision, the board dismissed the appeal outright and cited a provision of the Immigration Act that requires appeals to be filed within three working days of the decision. It treated the date the refusal was issued as the operative date.

Mr Justice Mintoff took issue with the approach. While acknowledging the law, he said he was not morally convinced that the legislator had intended the three-day clock to start running even when an applicant was not aware of the decision taken.

He argued that, for the deadline to begin, a person must be validly notified. Otherwise, a time limit could expire before the person learns of the decision.

The appellant argued that the letter reached her by email, which she said could not be treated as official notification under Maltese law. Moreover, the board made no effort to establish when or whether she had received the letter.

'Migrant workers often left in vulnerable position'

Identità countered that an applicant cannot choose when to be notified by deciding when to open an email sent to an address she herself had provided. Doing so would make notification deadlines arbitrary, it said.

While Mr Justice Mintoff did not rule that the email notification was invalid, he said such notifications should be sent in a way that lets the sender confirm when the message is read. Without a system to trace precisely when a person was notified, he said he could not be certain that the appeal had been filed late.

He also commented on the vulnerable position that migrant workers are often left in. The fact that a prospective employer can withdraw an application made on a worker’s behalf without notice leaves the applicant in an irregular situation through no fault of their own.

He said it was unacceptable that a person who had separated from their family and paid large sums to reach Malta in search of work could find someone exploiting their vulnerability by withdrawing an application filed in their name.

In such cases, he said a sense of proportion and compassion should take precedence over any other consideration.

The court annulled both the board’s decision and Identità’s original refusal. Identità must consider a new application from the woman and bear the costs of the proceedings.

Lawyer Edward Mario Camilleri appeared on behalf of the Colombian national. Corinne Pace, and Shaune Mizzi appeared on behalf of Identità.