Gorry v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment


Gorry v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 55
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:23 Sep 2020
Judge:O’Donnell D
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family (Nuclear), Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Migration (Family)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ab9b764b-8af3-42dd-b6e4-49d07a43876b/2020_IESC_55_1%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first named applicant was a Nigerian woman who was refused asylum in Ireland and in respect of whom a deportation order was made in June 2005. She lived in Ireland without permission for four years. In 2006, she met the second named applicant who was an Irish citizen. After a number of years they decided to marry. The … Read More

Principles:There is no prima facie constitutionally protected right to cohabit in the State for marital couples, one of whom is a non-Irish national. However, the test under Article 8 of the ECHR should not be applied in the consideration of issues arising under the Constitution, because while the Constitution and the ECHR together provide extensive overlapping protection for families and marriage, it is necessary to recognise the different contexts.
Go Back

Agha v Minister for Social Protection; Osinuga v Minister for Social Protection

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Social Protection
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2018] IECA 155
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:06 May 2018
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Citizenship, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Discrimination (Indirect), Equal Treatment (Principle of), Immigration, Migrant (Irregular), Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, Nigeria, Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1117d422-fc42-41fe-8c30-88f03e2d04a5/2018_IECA_155_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

xAgha v Minister for Social Protection; Osinuga v Minister for Social Protection Agha; Osinuga Minister for Social Protection Facts: The appellants were two sets of parents who were refused payment of child benefit due to their immigration status. In the Agha case, the parents were Afghan nationals who arrived in Ireland in 2008. They lived in direct provision and had … Read More

Principles:

There was no objective justification for the statutory exclusion of an Irish citizen resident in the State from eligibility for child benefit prior to the grant of status to her mother in January 2016. Accordingly, this statutory exclusion constituted a breach of the equality provisions of Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

The statutory requirement that a qualifying parent for the purposes of social welfare payments must also have a legal entitlement to reside in the State was not unconstitutional. The key issue was that of citizenship. The Oireachtas was entitled to attach conditions to the eligibility for social welfare of a non-national whose entitlement to reside in the State was contingent on a statutory entitlement. However, social welfare was payable in respect of a person from the date of the grant of refugee status in accordance with Article 28 of the Qualification Directive and insofar as Irish law precluded this payment based on the status of the child’s parents, this was incompatible with EU law.

Go Back

Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2018] IESC 24
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Apr 2018
Judge:MacMenamin J
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Immigration, Migrant, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8a2e522b-f438-4344-963a-7247640c9911/2018_IESC_24_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicants were Mauritian citizens who came to Ireland lawfully on student permissions which were renewed periodically from time to time for several years. In 2011 the government adopted a new policy which placed a maximum time limit on how long students could remain in the State. The applicants subsequently applied to the Minister for a change of status … Read More

Principles:The Minister was obliged to consider constitutional and ECHR rights when deciding an application to vary permission under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.
Go Back

Gorry, Ford and ABM v Minister for Justice

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 280, 281 and 282
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review / Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Immigration, Non-EU National, Residence, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c53548e-e3f1-46bd-9973-8b3f13d31f52/2017_IECA_280_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In each of these cases, one of the applicants was an Irish citizen and was married to the other applicant who is a foreign national. The marriages in question either took place in Ireland or Nigeria, and all three were recognised by the Minister as lawful marriages. Each application for judicial review sought an order of certiorari of an … Read More

Principles:

The Minister did not consider the constitutional rights of the applicants in accordance with law, in particular

  1. the guarantee given by the State in Art.41.1.2° to protect the family in its constitution and authority;
  2. a recognition that the applicants in each case were a family, a fundamental unit group of society possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights which rights included a right to cohabit which was also an individual right of the citizen spouse which the State must, as far as practicable, defend and vindicate (Art.41.1 and Art.40.3.1°);
  3. a recognition that the decision that the family should live in Ireland was a decision which they had the right to take and which the State had guaranteed in Art.41.1 to protect; and
  4. a recognition of the right of the Irish citizen to live at all times in Ireland as part of what Art.2 refers to as the “birth right . . . to be part of the Irish Nation” and the absence of any right of the State (absent international obligations which do not apply) to limit that right.

Go Back

KRA v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 284
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Ryan S.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, Immigration, Non-national
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7b2278a6-5194-4c63-bc6d-24315b843318/2017_IECA_284_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: Ms KRA, the first named applicant, was born in Nigeria in 1975. She married there and had three children. In early 2008, she came alone to Ireland while pregnant and sought asylum. Her baby, the second named applicant, BMA, was born four days later on 14 March 2008. The asylum application was rejected and in March 2009, Ms KRA … Read More

Principles:

Article 42A of the Constitution did not amount to a bar to the deportation of a non-citizen child who was undergoing primary education in the State. The circumstances of the mother and child in this case did not require separate and individual consideration by the Minister. The Minister was not obliged to make a comparison between the educational opportunities in Ireland and Nigeria before making a decision on whether to revoke the deportation order. 

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2017] IESC 52
Judgment Date/s:13 Jul 2017
Judge:O’Malley I.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Immigration, Non-EU National, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/608f029a-2647-4aee-9435-0f6b213386bd/2017_IESC_52_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The plaintiff’s wife, a French national, lived and worked in the State between 1999 and the end of 2004, and the plaintiff resided here throughout that period and beyond. In 2007, the plaintiff applied for permanent residence pursuant to art.16 of Directive 2004/38/EC and reg.12 of the Irish implementing regulations, the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No.2) Regulations … Read More

Principles:

The plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to Francovich damages because the error of law made by the Minister in refusing his application for permanent residence was not inexcusable.

Go Back

Rughoonauth v Minister for Justice and Equality (No.2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 241
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Apr 2017
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cb16d5cf-2121-4204-954c-7e3966b4afde/2017_IEHC_241_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicants were students from Mauritius who entered the State on student permissions in 2008 which were renewed for over four years but then expired and the applicants thereafter remained in the State without permission. The Minister made deportation orders against them which rejected their assertions that they had acquired private life rights in the State by reason of … Read More

Principles:

Non-nationals who are resident in the State on student permissions should not be regarded as settled migrants.

Go Back

Nwosu v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 372
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:10 Mar 2017
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:Residence, Visa
Keywords:Family Member, Family Reunification, Immigration, Residence, Third-Country National, Visa
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/46fee6b0-13c3-4252-8513-389ea29706a0/2017_IEHC_372_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first named applicant was a health care worker and an Irish citizen. The second named applicant was a business owner and a Nigerian citizen. The first named applicant was born in Nigeria but moved to Ireland in 2002. In 2008, she was granted three years permission to remain in the State. In her grounding affidavit, the first named … Read More

Principles:

The Minister was entitled to refuse an application for a join spouse visa on the basis that the applicants did not meet the minimum income threshold set out in the  INIS Policy Document on non-EEA Family Reunification and therefore finding that the grant of the visa was likely to put pressure on the family’s financial resources with the likelihood of a cost to public funds and public resources.  

Go Back

WS v Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 128
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Feb 2017
Judge:O'Regan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student, Visa
Country of Origin:Malaysia
URL:http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/36BBA683D8E20E90802580F0005A4B79
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:  The applicant was a Malaysian citizen who arrived initially in Ireland in 2007 with his wife. They had secured a visitors’ permission to remain for 90 days, however they outstayed this period by approximately 2 years when they returned to Malaysia in 2009. In July 2009 the applicant secured a 1 year valid student visa and his wife and … Read More

Principles:

The conditions attached to a student visa did not preclude such a person from being considered to be a settled migrant for the period for which they have permission.

Go Back

Luximon v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 382
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Protection (International), Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8fa3faf7-d874-4a36-914c-4354fad01088/2016_IECA_382_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Mauritian citizen who came to Ireland in July 2006 on an student permission. This permission was renewed  from time to time until June 2012. In October 2012 she applied for a change of status to regularise her position in the State, which would effectively allow her continue to reside in Ireland without the requirement that … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

Balchand v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 383
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e23dd69e-8b80-4b5e-955e-6b6522fde01e/2016_IECA_383_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The first named applicant was a Mauritian national who arrived in the State on the 7 December 2006 and was granted an immigration permission on student conditions (generally referred to as “stamp 2” conditions or permission). He married the second named applicant, who was also a Mauritian national, and shortly thereafter she also arrived in the State and was … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

Ahsan v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 691
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Third-Country National, Union Citizen, Visa
Country of Origin:United Kingdom/Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/208f7b4e-f207-4984-9ae9-98f2a6316beb/2016_IEHC_691_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an EU citizen who had moved to the State and wanted a visa for his wife to allow her join him. The rights asserted by the applicants arose pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Citizens’ Directive”) and in particular article 5(2) which provided that such visas should be issued “as soon as possible and on the basis … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Ahsan establishes that delays of several months in the determination of visa applications by non-national family member of EU citizens to allow them join EU nationals in the State are in breach of EU law, notwithstanding the unprecedented surge in the numbers of such applications which pose logistical difficulties for the Minister. Generalised concerns as to potential abuse of EU Treaty Rights are not sufficient to justify such delays.

Go Back

Mahmood v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 600
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Oct 2016
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Third Country, Union Citizen, Visa
Country of Origin:United Kingdom/Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/af4577cb-1ce2-4d85-98c8-0ef1889462de/2016_IEHC_600_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was an EU citizen who intended to move to the State and wanted a visa for his wife to allow her accompany him. The rights asserted by the applicants arose pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC (“the Citizens’ Directive”) and in particular article 5(2) which provided that such visas should be issued “as soon as possible and on the … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Mahmood establishes that delays of several months in the determination of visa applications by non-national family member of EU citizens to allow them accompany the EU nationals to the State are in breach of EU law, notwithstanding the unprecedented surge in the numbers of such applications which pose logistical difficulties for the Minister. Generalised concerns as to potential abuse of EU Treaty Rights are not sufficient to justify such delays.

Go Back

ABM v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 479
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Immigration
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/7508e6fd24a71320802580110052cf6c?OpenDocument
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts:  The applicants were a married couple; the husband was a failed asylum seeker in respect of whom a deportation order was made in June 2008. The wife became an Irish citizen, and in January 2014 they applied for revocation of the deportation order. That application was refused in July 2015 and the husband was deported in September 2015. The … Read More

Principles:

The decision in ABM v Minister for Justice creates uncertainty as to whether an Irish citizen has a prima facie right to reside in the State with his or her non-Irish citizen spouse. The decisions in ABM and Gorry are under appeal.

Go Back

IRM v Minister for Justice and Equality (No.2)

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 478
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Jul 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/14935597-d3bd-4551-9101-067d8a435de0/2016_IEHC_478_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In IRM (No.2) the High Court considered the obligation on the Minister to consider the rights of an unborn child when deciding whether to revoke a deportation order in respect of the father of the child. The applicant was a Nigerian citizen who was refused asylum; a deportation order was subsequently issued but he remained unlawfully in the State. … Read More

Principles:

The decision in IRM establishes that the prospective legal rights and (where raised in submissions) interests that a child will acquire on birth are matters that the Minister must consider when an application is made under s.3(11) by reference to an unborn child.

Go Back

STE v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2016] IEHC 379
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Jun 2016
Judge:Humphreys R.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration
Country of Origin:Cameroon/Morocco
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e0aff845-0ff7-4e3d-8dd1-511b88a4f82c/2016_IEHC_379_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In STE v Minister for Justice and Equality the High Court considered whether the Minister for Justice, when considering whether to deport a group of family members, is entitled to make a deportation order against one family member while granting leave to remain to others, resulting in the separation of the family. The first named applicant arrived in the … Read More

Principles:

The decision of the High Court in STE (No.1) establishes that the Minister must consider the collective rights of a family when deciding whether to deport one of the members of the family, when all members of the family have an equally precarious immigration status, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. It is unlawful to select between two equally precarious parties to a relationship and decide that one can stay and the other must leave, without compelling justification, in circumstances where this would actively break up the family by State action.

Go Back

Li v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 638
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Oct 2015
Judge:Humphreys J.
Category:Residence, Visa
Keywords:Immigration, Residence, Visa
Country of Origin:China
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c5061a65-2dd5-4732-babc-35e8ba7a395b/2015_IEHC_638_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were Chinese nationals who were married and had an adult daughter, who married an Irish citizen in May 2011 and obtained Irish residency thereafter. In 2012 the applicants obtained a 90 day visitor’s visa to come to Ireland to visit their daughter. They returned to China immediately before the visa expired. They subsequently applied for a further … Read More

Principles:

Where a visa-required national enters the State and wishes to remain on its territory after the expiry of the visa, he or she is required, upon or before expiry of that visa, to leave the State and make an application to re-enter it from outside its territory.

Go Back

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice and Equality & ors

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General and Ireland
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2015] IESC 53
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:23 Jun 2015
Judge:Murray, Hardiman, O’Donnell, Clarke and MacMenamin JJ.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Adult, Asylum, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Minor, Overstay(er)
Country of Origin:Georgia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b3fe2fb0-bb95-4883-8b4e-bec277ffaf14/2015_IESC_53_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Europe

Facts: The first and fourth applicants, both Georgian nationals, were wife and husband respectively, and parents of the second and third applicants. They had both unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Ireland. The Minister for Justice had made a deportation order in respect of the fourth applicant in 2001, on foot of which he had been deported in 2011. The applicants … Read More

Principles:

A non-Irish national who has no permission to be in the State may be made the subject of a deportation order by the Minister for Justice which has the effect of requiring him or her to leave the State and remain outside of it indefinitely. On account of his or her status, such an order does not deny him or her any right to be in the State. Whether or not the making of such an order is disproportionate on account of inter alia its effect on family life, will depend on the facts of each individual case. A general charge of disproportionality cannot be levelled against the sub-sections in an effort to have them struck down as unconstitutional. Such a case can only be made in a factual context.

The indefinite nature of an order made under s. 3(1) has to be considered in the light of s. 3(11), pursuant to which the subject of it may apply for it to be amended or revoked at any time. In deciding whether or not to make or to amend or revoke an order, the Minster for Justice must act constitutionally and have regard to the facts of the particular case, including any representations made about the impact of the order on such matters as family rights.

In deciding whether or not to dismiss an appeal for abuse of process in which a constitutional provision is challenged, regard must be had to the value which the Constitution attaches to such an appeal, the right of persons not to be subject to unconstitutional laws. It may also be necessary to consider the interests of any children who are party to the proceedings, bearing in mind Article 42A of the Constitution. However, the sole fact that a blameless minor had been included in proceedings would not necessarily prevent a court exercising its discretion to dismiss an appeal on the grounds of abuse of process, particularly in judicial review proceedings.

Go Back

TAR and IH v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 385
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2014
Category:Visa
Keywords:Entry (Refusal of), Immigration, Visa
Country of Origin:Iraq
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:The applicants were Iraqi nationals. The first named applicant was retired and his wife, the second named applicant, was a teacher. They sought visas from the Minister for Justice to enter Ireland to visit their son, a naturalised Irish citizen. Their application was refused. They unsuccessfully appealed the refusal. The Minister affirmed it and held that their obligations to return … Read More

Principles:

Reasons for refusing visa applications do not have to be lengthy, but they must express the basis upon which the applications have been refused in order that the unsuccessful applicants may understand them and decide whether or not to appeal or review them, and in order that a court may review them in any challenge.

If the Minister for Justice has concerns about the information provided in support of a visa application, it is prudent to raise this with an applicant before determining the application rather than refusing it and thereby encouraging an applicant to take legal proceedings.

Go Back

Babington v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality et al
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:High Court of Ireland; Inter Partes; Application for Leave for Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:12 Mar 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Immigration, Residence
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/db9838c0-8462-44fc-a601-6d79c288fb42/2012_IEHC_109_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, a Nigerian national married to a Czech national, arrived in the State with his wife in 2005, and was granted residence for an initial period of one year in 2005. In 2007 he was issued with a residence card valid until 2007. In December 2010 he applied for permanent residence on the basis of having resided in … Read More

Principles:

When a five-year permission is granted on one basis of, an application for permanent residence need not necessarily be based on the same condition being fulfilled five years later. So long as one of more of the conditions of Regulation 6(2)(a) of the Regulations is shown to have been complied with throughout the five years, the entitlement to permanent residence is satisfied.

Acknowledgement of entitlement to reside longer than three months does not create any estoppel or curtail the Minister’s entitlement and duty to assess whether the conditions governing entitlement to permanent residence are satisfied five years later.

Go Back