British Overseas Territories citizens could have a legal case for Bermudian status, even though the Government has backed down on its “Pathways to Status” initiative.

Immigration lawyer Peter Sanderson made the observation in the wake of recent cases entailing “belongers”, or persons deemed as belonging in Bermuda under the island’s constitution.

Mr Sanderson spoke to The Royal Gazette after a “landmark” Court of Appeal ruling upheld the right of Melvern Williams, a BOT citizen born in Jamaica, to work in Bermuda.

He called the Williams case significant for “a hidden group of ‘rights-less’ citizens” to secure the same treatment as Bermudians. While he could not put a figure on how many people could qualify for their day in court, Mr Sanderson said complaints based on Bermuda’s international obligations could even be taken before a United Nations tribunal. “My impression is that everybody has focused on Bermudian status for so long that other types of belongers have been completely overlooked,” he said.

“However, these recent cases are emphasising the importance of BOT citizenship in Bermuda’s unique constitutional framework.”

As well as the Williams case, local courts dealt on March 4 with the case of Michael Barbosa, a BOT citizen who argued successfully that Bermuda’s immigration laws were discriminatory.

“Barbosa is being appealed by the Government, but remains the law unless and until it is overturned by a higher court,” Mr Sanderson said.

“Parents whose children were born or brought up in Bermuda may wish to take advice on whether their children are eligible for BOT citizenship.”

Mr Williams, born in Jamaica but naturalised in December 2014, lost his job three months later because he did not have a work permit.

In that case, Mr Sanderson argued before Chief Justice Ian Kawaley that the Department of Immigration’s requirements had been discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the ruling by Dr Justice Kawaley, which found that the Bermuda Constitution clashed with the 1956 Immigration Act.

Earlier this month, appeal judges found that the work permit requirement for a belonger not possessing Bermudian status “has a disproportionately prejudicial effect on belongers whose place of origin is not Bermuda”.

“This requirement is indirectly discriminatory, and there is no reason why belongers should be treated differently based upon the distinction as to whether their place of origin is Bermuda or a place other than Bermuda.”

Mr Sanderson said the Williams case could open the door for other challenges by naturalised BOT citizens, such as cases against the island’s 60-40 rule for company ownership.

Possessing belonger status “does not come with voting rights, nor does it bring any entitlement to Bermudian status”, he noted.

However, it had been argued in the Barbosa case that Bermuda’s immigration law unfairly prevented the respondent from seeking status based on his place of origin.

Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman also ruled in that case that Mr Barbosa could bring his case back to court if the pathways to status amendments were not enacted. Those amendments were dropped by the Government later in March, in the face of widespread protests.

“There have not yet been any cases on the lack of a pathway to status for naturalised BOT citizens as opposed to born BOT citizens,” Mr Sanderson said, adding: “It could be argued that would be discriminatory to deny a pathway to naturalised BOT citizens.”

Further, in a 2014 ruling that allowed certain permanent residents the right to obtain Bermudian status, the Chief Justice noted that depriving BOT citizens of voting rights went against the Island’s obligations under treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

“Citizens are supposed to be able to participate in a democracy,” Mr Sanderson said.

“So, even if a case were unsuccessful in Bermuda’s courts, a complaint could be made to a United Nations human rights tribunal.”