A Japanese man spent six days in jail and had to argue for three days in the High Court against his deportation from the State because of a “misunderstanding”, the court heard yesterday.
An injunction stopping the sushi chef from being deported was struck out yesterday after Takafumi Mizuno’s lawyers reached a settlement with lawyers for the Minister for Justice. Whether Mr Mizuno has been allowed to stay in Ireland or not is unknown because of a confidentiality clause but afterwards he said he was “very happy” with the outcome.
He was refused entry into the State on Thursday June 27th because his student visa had expired and because he wanted to work without a permit, according to an affidavit sworn by immigration officer Gerard Tucker.
Mr Mizuno had been living in Ireland since 2008 and was returning with his partner Agnieszka Kowalska after visiting her family in Poland. After being refused entry he was taken to Cloverhill prison. Last Friday his lawyers got an injunction stopping him being deported.
'Unfortunate series of events'
Mr Justice Paul McDermott yesterday questioned whether an "unfortunate series of events" had taken place. There may be a "misunderstanding at the core of this case", he added.
As a student Mr Mizuno would have been allowed to work 20 hours a week and therefore would not have been working illegally, he said. His student visa had expired on June 5th and he left to visit Poland on June 14th. While he was in Poland a work permit application was submitted by his employer.
There was only nine days between his student visa expiring and his leaving the State. “It doesn’t appear he would have had much opportunity to work without a work permit,” said Mr Justice McDermott.
“There may be a misunderstanding between the applicant and the immigration officer about the history of his employment,” he added.
Counsel for Mr Mizuno argued he should have been allowed to enter the State because there is no visa requirement for Japanese nationals for visits of up to 90 days.
An affidavit sworn by Mr Mizuno said his phone was confiscated and he was only able to contact his lawyer by emailing his partner. Mr Tucker’s affidavit says the phone had not been taken.