This is the face of four-month-old Nazaya Barnett, whose parents are battling to be able to live together and raise her in Bermuda.Nazaya's Bermudian mother, Nea Barnett, took Government to court after the Minister of Immigration refused to let her Jamaican husband, David Barnett, stay here with her.Judge Ian Kawaley yesterday quashed the Minister's decision to ban Mr Barnett from living here, and ordered that the family's request be considered afresh.Government refused permission for Mr Barnett to join his wife and child on the Island because he once had to be deported after overstaying his visa by nearly a year. He was also said to have shown “moral turpitude” by getting convicted of cannabis possession in his home country.The Barnett family's lawyer Richard Horseman, described the decision as “irrational” and a “breach of constitutional rights”.He told the judge yesterday: “The Minister failed to take into account that this was a family, consisting of two people in love, which wedded and subsequently conceived a child. At no time prior to the decision or since the decision, has the Minister taken into account the Bermudian mother and the Bermudian child and their inalienable rights to be with their husband and father.“It is the right of this child to have her father here with her to care for and protect her. It is the right of the wife to have her husband here to love and to hold and to help with the raising of the child.“This is not a right that can be easily dispensed with.”Mr Horseman said 24-year-old Mrs Barnett, whose maiden name was Willcocks, is a university graduate with a bright future at the accounting firm where she works.At present, he said, she is suffering “serious stress and pressure” as a single mother without her husband, who she could support financially if necessary.The lawyer also described Bermuda's laws on bringing in spouses as “mind-boggling” because the rules on “moral turpitude” only apply to Bermudian women seeking to bring in foreign spouses, not men.“I could bring in a crack-smoking hooker and [if] I love her and she's my wife, according to the Immigration Act, that's fine, but if Nea Willcocks wants to bring in her husband who has a conviction for simple possession of cannabis, it's moral turpitude,” he complained.He stressed that the Barnetts do not have a “sham marriage”. They met in Bermuda in June 2008, and spent the summer together. Mr Barnett left the Island, having overstayed his time here, early in 2009. Mrs Barnett visited him in Jamaica three times between spring 2009 and September 2010.“Their love did not falter and they spent all the possible time that they could together,” said Mr Horseman.On the third visit to Jamaica, baby Nazaya was conceived. Mr and Mrs Barnett married there in December 2010. In March 2011, Mrs Barnett, of Nantucket Lane, Smith's, applied to the Department of Immigration for a spousal permit for her husband to come to Bermuda. She also requested that his name be removed from the stop list, where it had been placed as a result of him overstaying his welcome.The reply came back in May from Permanent Secretary Marc Telemaque that the request had been refused by the Minister. Just 26 days later, baby Nazaya was born. The couple appealed the Minister's decision but the Minister had not reconsidered the matter by the time of yesterday's court hearing, despite indicating on August 26 that he was prepared to do so.Ordering the Minister to reconsider the decision “as a matter of urgency”, Mr Justice Kawaley also commented that the Barnetts “have a strong case”.Acting Solicitor General Melvin Douglas indicated this would be done within 30 days of Mr Horseman sending further representations to the Minister.Mr Horseman said after the case: “We were grateful for the court's consideration of this matter. The Honourable Minister conceded that the decision should be quashed by the court and he be permitted to reconsider the matter.“The court has made that order. We were attempting to have the court go one step further and direct the Minister to remove Mr Barnett's name from the stop list and issue a spousal certificate. The court was not prepared to go that far as this was a judicial review application which only normally allows an applicant to challenge the manner in which the decision was made, as opposed to an appeal of the decision itself.“We will now make further representations to the Honourable Minister in the hope that a decision can be reached which will allow the family to unite.”Mrs Barnett declined to comment or to have her picture taken after the hearing.