'Substantial hole' in defence of Gaza student visa denial

A judge hearing a judicial review of a Minister for Justice decision to deny a study visa to a student in Gaza has said there is "a substantial hole" in the case being put forward by the minister in defence of that decision.

In what Mr Justice Anthony Barr called "a serious development" this morning counsel for the minister told the High Court that the Department of Justice had in fact received important documents confirming the student's proficiency in the English language.

Yesterday, counsel for the student had insisted that the documents had been submitted as part of Shaymaa Abudalu's study visa application, but in an affidavit the department stated that the documents had not been received.

This morning, the High Court heard that lawyers for the minister had "made inquiries overnight" and could confirm that the language documents had in fact been received by the department but "for some reason" did not go before the person who had decided to reject Ms Abudalu's application.

Among the reasons given to Ms Abudalu for rejection of her visa application was insufficient evidence of her proficiency in the English language.

"The net position now is that the decision-maker made an adverse finding on a basis that is now totally incorrect, without sight of significant documents," Mr Justice Anthony Barr said.

Calling this a serious and significant problem, he asked counsel for the minister Eoin Carolan "does that leave you in a position that you can stand over the decision?".

Mr Carolan said the decision to reject Ms Abudalu's visa application was based on a number of criteria "which still stand", and he confirmed that the department would proceed to defend its decision.

Yesterday, the court heard that Shaymaa Abudalu has been offered a fully funded place on a four-year Engineering degree programme at UCC.

However, she cannot travel to Ireland to take up her place because her application for a study visa was refused.

Ms Abudalu's mother and her two sisters and brother were killed in an Israeli missile strike in March of 2024.

Her grandparents, her aunt, and other relatives were also killed in the attack.

The court heard that Ms Abudalu was buried under rubble beside the body of one of her sisters for a number of hours, and was unable to walk for over a month as a result of injuries she sustained.

Described as an exceptional student over a year later she sat her final school exams – the equivalent of the Irish Leaving Certificate – and obtained a score of 96.7%.

Lawyers representing Ms Abudalu have argued that the decision to reject her study visa application was unlawful and irrational.

Mr Carolan said a claim that there was a legitimate expectation that this year's applicants would be treated in a certain way, because of how previous applicants had been treated, "lacked precision", "changed and shifted", and was unsupported by actual evidence.

He said that undoubtedly a narrative existed - one that had been articulated in the media and subject to public protests - but it was based on impressions, understandings and conversations with other students, as opposed to evidence.

Mr Carolan acknowledged there had been errors in the Department of Justice decision-making process.

As well as failing to consider or acknowledge documents sent in support of Ms Abudalu's English language proficiency, he also agreed that it was an error to have disregarded a financial summary document that had been supplied.

However, he said there were a number of reasons given to justify refusal of Ms Abudalu's visa application that still stood.

He said the applicant had failed to submit required bank statements and had not provided any explanation for this.

Mr Carolan said in her affidavit the applicant had stated she had not supplied personal bank statements because her course of study was fully funded by UCC.

He said this was at odds with the position put forward by her lawyers, who pointed to the collapse of the banking system in Gaza.

He said the reasons given for rejection of Ms Abudalu's study visa application included that she had not provided sufficient evidence of her academic ability.

It was only in the course of her appeal that she had stated that the offer of a place on an undergraduate Engineering course at UCC was a competitive one.

Mr Carolan said in rejecting the application the decision-maker had also found insufficient evidence of a strong obligation to return to Palestine when her course of study ended.

He said Ms Abudalu had provided no evidence, such as evidence of employment, ownership of property, or family ties in Palestine.

"It was entirely reasonable for the decision-maker to say I'm not satisfied," he said.

Flowing from this, Mr Carolan said the applicant had not demonstrated that her primary reason to come to Ireland was for the purpose of study, and that she would return to her home country upon completion of her degree.

"There is no doubt that core aspects of the decision were in accordance with the published guidelines," he said.

The case is continuing.