Colombian cocaine smuggler wins victory in fight to stay in Cayman

A Colombian national convicted of smuggling cocaine into the Cayman Islands has won a significant legal victory in his battle to stay in Cayman with his wife and 4-year-old son.

Alan Taylor Dominguez was stripped of his permanent residency certificate after he was sentenced to four years in prison for his part in a drug-importation plot.

Now a judge has ruled that the Immigration Appeals Tribunal failed to fully consider the rights of his family before rubber-stamping a decision that would have seen him deported to Colombia.

The tribunal has been ordered to reconsider the case. Acting Justice Alistair Walters, in a judgment published last week, also questioned why government bodies making major immigration decisions had no clear written policies to ensure their rulings were fair and consistent.

Dominguez was sentenced to four years in prison for his role as a middleman in a plot involving drug mules swallowing condoms filled with cocaine.

Dominguez admitted his involvement and gave evidence that helped to convict customs officer David Lobo, who was sentenced to 16 years for a leading role in the operation to bring 1.8 kilograms of cocaine into the island in 2017.

The Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board revoked Dominguez’s residency certificate in October 2019 – six months after he was sentenced for his role in the crime.

The board’s decision was subsequently found to be erroneous. But, on a fresh hearing, the Immigration Appeals Tribunal in June 2021 concluded that his residency rights should be revoked, sparking an appeal to the Grand Court.

Family ties

After a hearing last month, Walters ruled that the tribunal should reconsider its decision, giving greater weight to Dominguez’s family ties in Cayman.

The tribunal’s original decision, quoted in the judgment, indicates that the panel decided the offence of smuggling cocaine into Cayman was serious enough to outweigh the impact of the revocation of his RERC which would have the effect of requiring Dominguez to be separated from his wife, as well as his son and two stepchildren, all under the age of 18. His wife is a Cuban-born Caymanian and the couple have been married since 2013, according to background details set out in the judgment.

Nonetheless, the tribunal decided Dominguez should have his RERC revoked.

Acknowledging it may be dangerous and unsuitable for his family to move to Colombia with him, the decision indicates they could all meet in a ‘safe country’.

“The nature and seriousness of the offence weighs heavily in comparison to the other factors. The Tribunal noted the seriousness of the effects of cocaine use on addicts and the poverty and crime that results. The high number of known cocaine addicts seen begging on our streets along with the breakdown of family life was also considered,” according to that decision.

Alastair David, of HSM Chambers, representing Dominguez, argued that the decision had failed to consider the best interests of Dominguez’s 4-year-old Caymanian son, as required by both the Constitution and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

David highlighted how his client’s cooperation with authorities had helped convict a corrupt government employee and highlighted his otherwise clean record, good behaviour in prison and character references, including from his employer, as evidence that he was unlikely to reoffend.

He argued that the board’s power to revoke residency rights is discretionary and has to be balanced against the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to a private and family life – both for Dominguez and for his wife and son.

Policy expressed ‘society’s revulsion’

Government’s case, summarised in the judgment, is that the tribunal did consider those rights but still decided to deport a convicted drug smuggler in the best interests of the islands.

“Where a foreign national commits a serious crime, it is legitimate for the (Immigration Appeals Tribunal) to factor into its consideration the public policy need to express society’s revulsion at the seriousness of the criminality and an element of deterrence so that other foreign nationals understand that one of the consequences of serious crime may well be deportation,” the summary stated.

Walters decided that the tribunal had ‘failed to engage in any meaningful analysis’ of the likely impact deporting Dominguez would have on his wife and child and had ‘acted unreasonably’.

Citing case precedent, he said it was rarely considered proportionate to uphold a ‘removal order’ that severed a genuine relationship between parent and child.

The judge said it was ‘surprising’ that – despite previous court rulings – neither the Caymanian Status and Permanent Residency Board nor the appeals tribunal had written policies or procedures in place for how to handle such issues.

“…[W]ithout a clear framework establishing and setting out how these bodies approach their statutory role and particularly the exercise of statutory discretion, it is difficult to understand how decisions have been taken, on what basis, whether they are reasonable and proportionate and whether they are consistent”, he said.

Walters added that the tribunal ‘erred in law’ by applying “incomplete and outdated legal principles” to the question of Dominguez’s constitutional rights and ordered the matter be remitted back for a new hearing.