An immigrant is not considered to be staying in Malta illegally when he is not officially notified of his termination of employment
An immigrant shall not be deemed to be overstaying from a date of termination of employment when such date was determined only by the employer and the immigrant was never notified
An immigrant shall not be deemed to be overstaying from a date of termination of employment when such date was determined only by the employer and the immigrant was never notified.
An immigrant shall not be deemed to be overstaying from a date of termination of employment when such date was determined only by the employer and the immigrant was never notified. This was outlined in Davor Jahic vs Identity Malta Agency decided by the Immigration Appeals Board on the 03rd October 2022.
In virtue of a decision taken by the Identity Malta Agency on the 07th January 2022, Mr Jahic’s residence permit was revoked with immediate affect because his employer had submitted a termination notification of his employment to Identity Malta. This nullified his work residence permit from the date of termination.
As a result, Mr Jahic’s stay in Malta was no longer authorized and he could only continue staying in Malta if he had alternative authorization to remain legally in Malta. Otherwise, his stay in Malta could be deemed to be in violation of the Immigration Act as from the date of his termination of employment.
Mr Jahic appealed Identity Malta’s decision on the 04th February 2022 in front of the Immigration Appeals Board, whereby his lawyer indicated that he had been legally residing in Malta for around four years and his last residence permit which was issued, was valid until 07th September 2022. His lawyer explained that Mr Jahic’s employment was never formally terminated by his then employer because he was never notified, neither by his employer nor by JobsPlus. Therefore, in the absence of a formal notice of termination, Mr Jahic could not be considered as overstaying from a date of termination determined by his employer which was never notified to him.
Whilst submitting the appeal, Mr Jahic decided to submit a change of employer application with the hope of safeguarding his position. He successfully submitted the new application, which was formally acknowledged. Hence, according to his lawyer, he regularized his stay by submitting a fresh application with Identity Malta as soon as he was notified of the decision that his single permit was being withdrawn.
In its reply to the appeal, Identity Malta stated that it failed to understand how it was supposed to reply to the appellant’s appeal since the appellant failed to list the grounds upon which he is appealing from the Agency’s decision. It recalled how JobsPlus had sent an email to the Identity Malta Agency on the 17th October 2021 attaching a list of 35 employment licences which would expire after the 17th October 2021, and Mr Jahic’s name was included in the list. These employment licences were terminated either electronically or in an official form. Since the conditions on which the single permit for Mr Jahic was given did not continue to suffice, Identity Malta said that it issued the revocation letter on the 07th January 2022, revoking such permit with immediate effect.
After hearing both parties, the board reasoned that if Mr Jahic was not informed officially of his termination of employment, then he cannot be considered as a prohibited immigrant. Although the board confirmed that Identity Malta was correct in issuing the revocation letter because Mr Jahic’s employment was terminated, it upheld Mr Jahic’s appeal because no official notification was given to him. It also ordered that his fresh application with a prospective employer is processed, and that Identity Malta should decide on the new application on its own merits, without deeming the applicant to be staying illegally in Malta.
Dr Gianluca Cappitta was the lawyer for the appellant.