The Immigration Appeal Procedure in Malta
On the 24th of October 2025, the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction), presided over by Hon. Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff, delivered judgments in five (5) significant immigration appeal cases. Taken together, these judgments provide important guidance on how the Maltese courts are currently interpreting immigration appeal procedures, the limits of employer involvement, and the obligations of third-country nationals (TCNs) in maintaining lawful status.
The five (5) cases are:
- Akif Uzer vs Identità; Mr Akif Uzer, a Turkish national residing in Malta, filed an appeal against a decision made by the Principal Immigration Officer which ordered him to leave Malta and the Schengen area.
- Keisy Julieth Garcia Gil vs Identità; Ms Keisy Julieth Garcia Gil, of Colombian nationality, appealed against a decision of the Immigration Appeals Board on the refusal of her single work permit application by Identita’.
- Enez Tasdemir vs Identità; The appellant, Mr Enez Tasdemir, a Turkish national, appealed against a decision of the Immigration Appeals Board, by which he was instructed to make arrangements to leave Malta and the Schengen Zone
- Waheed Hussain vs Identità – The appellant, Mr. Waheed Hussain, a Pakistani national appealed against the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board, which had previously rejected his appeal against a removal order issued by the Principal Immigration Officer; and
- Bhagat Bista vs Identità – The appeal was brought by Mr. Bhagat Bista, a Nepalese national against the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board which had previously rejected his request for reconsideration of his regularisation in Malta.
Applicant to file appeal
Without delving into the individual merits of each case, a core theme running through all five (5) cases is the paramount importance of procedural standing regarding who may file an appeal to the Board. The Court repeatedly emphasised, mostly in the Keisy Julieth Garcia Gil case, that under article 20(2) of the Single Application Procedure For A Single Permit Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 217.17 of the laws of Malta)[1], only the third-country national, that is, the applicant themself, has the right to lodge an appeal against a decision of Identità or the Principal Immigration Officer (PIO) to the Immigration Appeals Board. Employers, recruitment agencies, or other intermediaries cannot appeal on behalf of the worker unless there is clear written authorisation to act in the applicant’s name.
Therefore, any appeals filed solely by employers without proper authorisation are deemed null and void. These judgments make it clear that procedural compliance is substantive and that failure to comply with formal requirements results in dismissal of the appeal regardless of the merits of the underlying case.
Role of Identità vs Principal Immigration Officer
The Court also clarified the distinction between Identità and the Principal Immigration Officer, which has often been a source of procedural confusion. Identità is responsible for the administrative processing of applications, such as Single Permits and residence cards.
However, the Principal Immigration Officer is the authority empowered under Article 5 of the Immigration Act (Cap. 217 of the Laws of Malta) to issue entry refusals, removal or return orders of “prohibited immigrants”. Several judgments, including that of Enez Tasdemir, highlighted errors by the Immigration Appeals Board in misaddressing decisions or notifications, sometimes confusing the two (2) authorities. The Court instructed that such errors must be recognised and corrected, underscoring the necessity of procedural accuracy in administrative decision-making.
Fairness, reasonableness and proportionality
While the Court maintained a strict approach to procedure, it also demonstrated sensitivity to fairness and proportionality, particularly in cases where irregular status arose due to third-party negligence, such as errors by employers or lawyers. In Tasdemir’s case and Uzer’s case, for instance, the Court stressed that deportation and expulsion decisions involve serious consequences for such individuals and must not result from administrative oversight.
In fact, both appellants sought to transfer employment, believing their applications had been filed by their lawyers with Identità when, in fact, none had been submitted. The Board dismissed their appeals for “gaining time” and lacking evidence. Taking matters into their own hands, both men personally submitted documents to the Board. Taking this into consideration, the Court granted the appellants three (3) days to file their documentation so Identità could reassess their applications, acknowledging that administrative failures should not automatically lead to deportation.
This approach reflects a careful balance between procedural formalism and equitable treatment of individuals affected by the Maltese immigration system. However, the Court as in the Hussain and Bista cases, further reaffirmed that humanitarian and proportionality considerations, while relevant, cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory immigration requirements.
For instance, Mr Hussain allowed his work permit to lapse on 23 June 2023 after his prospective employer failed to submit a timely single permit application, resulting in an overstay of nearly six months. Likewise, Mr Bista entered Malta on a valid employment visa in October 2022, but became irregular when his employer erroneously filed a “still abroad” application despite his presence in the country.
The rulings underscored that it is impermissible for individuals to allow their permits to lapse and subsequently seek regularisation “several weeks” thereafter. The legal framework, intended to safeguard public order, cannot be bypassed irrespective of where the fault for administrative delays may lie. Importantly, the Court affirmed that the ultimate responsibility for maintaining lawful residence rests with the third-country national, even in circumstances where the employer has clearly failed to fulfil its obligations. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed in their entirety.
Appeals on points of law
Another consistent theme is that appeals to the Court of Appeal are strictly limited to points of law, not points of fact, meaning factual or discretionary matters. The Court clarified that it cannot reassess the merits of decisions taken by Identità or Jobsplus, such as whether a job exists or whether the employer provided sufficient documentation. Its role is confined to ensuring that the Board applied the law correctly and followed proper procedure. This restriction reinforces a clear doctrinal trend limiting judicial intervention to questions of legality, leaving administrative discretion and operational decision-making in the hands of the competent authorities.
Conclusion
Taken together, these judgments signal a tightening of procedural discipline in Malta’s immigration appeal framework. The Court is effectively instructing both appellants and administrative bodies to:
- ensure that appeals are personally and properly filed by the applicant;
- distinguish clearly between decisions of Identità and the PIO;
- follow timelines and documentation requirements strictly; and
- ensure fairness, especially where administrative errors risk prejudicing an individual’s lawful stay.
While procedural formalism is enforced rigorously, the Court’s decisions also demonstrate that humanitarian considerations and proportionality remain relevant in protecting the rights of migrant workers.
How Can AE Help
Navigating Malta’s immigration appeal system requires precision and understanding of procedural rules. At AE Legal, we assist third-country nationals and employers in ensuring that appeals are correctly filed, deadlines are met, and legal requirements are observed.
Our team provides practical guidance on appeal preparation, representation before the Immigration Appeals Board, and compliance with Identità and PIO procedures to help clients safeguard their rights and maintain lawful status in Malta.
[1] Single Application Procedure For A Single Permit Regulations As Regards Residence And Work And A Common Set Of Rights For Those Third-Country Workers Legally Residing In Malta
