The writ application filed challenging the deportation order on UK national Kayleigh Fraser for participating in the recent protests in Sri Lanka has been dismissed without hearing by the Appeals Court today (16).
The order was issued when the petition was taken up for consideration before Appeals Court Judge Sobitha Rajakaruna.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, attorney-at-law Nagananda Kodituwakku stated before the court that although the minister in charge of immigration had the power to deport foreigners staying in the country, the action taken against the petitioner was completely against the law.
He mentioned that she had joined the Galle Face protest movement and expressed her opinion regarding the alleged use of expired tear gas by the security forces to disperse protesters. He also said that it cannot be claimed that she has brought the country into disrepute through this.
Mr. Kodituwakku also alleged that before canceling her visa, no fair investigation was conducted by the Immigration Controller and accused that this was an arbitrary decision taken by the Immigration Controller.
However, the state counsel presenting the facts before the court pointed out that the discretion to issue such a visa cancellation order rests with the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration.
The state counsel also drew the court’s attention to the fact that in a judgment issued by the Supreme Court,it was stated that the full discretionary power regarding the issuance, cancellation and extension of visas to foreigners has been assigned to the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration.
He further said that the Scottish tourist in question had arrived in Sri Lanka on a tourist visa and was issued a residence visa in 2021 and the visa was issued to receive medical treatment and the residence visa will remain valid until March 8 next year.
However, he alleged that the petitioner had not received medical treatment in Sri Lanka and she was engaged in business activities in Sri Lanka in violation of visa regulations.
He also pointed out that although the Controller General of Immigration and Emigration had only canceled the visa issued for the petitioner, no orders had been issued to deport her.
The state counsel also alleged that the petitioner has submitted the petition deliberately concealing these facts.
Therefore, he asked the court to reject the petition without hearing it as there is no reasonable legal basis for maintaining it.
After considering all the facts presented, the appellate court judge decided to reject the petition without taking it up for hearing.
