Wen Wei & Ting Ting v Minister for Justice & anor

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
Court/s:Court of Appeal, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2024
Judge:Woulfe, S., Hogan, G., O’Donnell
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Border control, Entry (Refusal of), Non-EU National, Refusal of leave to land, Student, Visa
Country of Origin:Malaysia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d56fd777-f75b-4b75-a57c-14e76b9e95c0/[2024]_IESC__58_Woulfe%20J.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellants were two Malaysian nationals who sought permission to land and enter the State at Cork Airport in December 2020 in order to start an English language course in January 2021. They were refused permission to land because the course was to be conducted online and not in person. This decision was made at the time of the … Read More

Principles:The reference to public policy in the refusal of leave to land ground under section 4(3)(j), Immigration Act 2004 should be understood as distinct from national security and as granting wide discretion to the Minister.
Go Back

Yeasin v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


Yeasin v Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 821
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Dec 2021
Judge:Meenan C.
Category:Employment, Immigration law
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Employment of LEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Illegal Stay, Non-EU National, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:People’s Republic of Bangladesh
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ce8bc5de-715b-467d-8727-572767e3c75a/2021_IEHC_821.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, entered the State on the basis of a student permission. This permission remained valid until the applicant was granted a residence card as a qualifying family member of his EU citizen spouse. The marriage subsequently broke down and the spouse returned to their EU country of origin. The applicant wrote to the Minister … Read More

Principles:The Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation has discretion to issue an employment permit where the person does not hold a current immigration permission to be in the State.
Go Back

P v the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation

admin


P v the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 609
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2021
Judge:Barrett M.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Non-EU National, Residence Permit, Third-Country National
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b0d2c886-bd5e-469b-b142-8e71c4698344/2021_IEHC_609.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: Mr P, a third-country national, initially applied to remain in Ireland as a permitted family member of an EU citizen. This application was refused and Mr P was in the process of seeking a review of this decision. As a result, Mr P did not have a permission to remain in the State. He applied for a General Employment … Read More

Principles:The Minister cannot refuse an application for a General Employment Permit on the ground that a person does not hold an immigration permission in the State, without examining the specific circumstances of the case and where there is no specific and relevant policy on examining applications for employment permits from persons without an immigration permission.
Go Back

Subhan v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


Subhan v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2019] IECA 330
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2019
Judge:Baker M
Category:Citizenship, Immigration law Free movement
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:United Kingdom, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/19bc7313-7173-491a-b089-d476d2391f77/2019_IECA_330_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts The applicants were both born in Pakistan and were first cousins. The first applicant became a naturalised British citizen and subsequently moved to the State in exercise of his EU Treaty Rights. He applied for permission for his first cousin to join him in the State as a permitted family member on the basis that he was a member … Read More

Principles:A person who cohabits or lives under the same roof as a Union citizen is not, merely by reason of that cohabitation, to be considered a member of the Union citizen’s household. The key task of the decision maker was to ascertain whether the cohabitation or co-living arrangements are more than merely convenient, and whether the non-Union citizen family member is part of a cohesive, long term, coherent and single unit which might generally be called a “household”.
Go Back

VK v Minister for Justice; Khan v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


VK v Minister for Justice; Khan v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2019] IECA 232
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2019
Judge:Baker M
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:Germany, Egypt, United Kingdom, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/eff2dccb-f5cd-42a0-8e62-acccffa895b6/2019_IECA_232_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The VK case involved a German citizen who was married to an Egyptian citizen. They resided in the State under EU Treaty Rights and submitted an application to allow the wife’s Egyptian parents and sisters join them in the State as qualifying family members who were dependent on them. In the Khan case, the applicants were UK citizens who … Read More

Principles:The test for dependence is one of EU law and an applicant must show, in the light of his financial and social conditions, a real and not temporary dependence on a Union citizen. The concept of dependence is to be interpreted broadly and in the light of the perceived benefit of family unity and the principles of freedom of movement.
Go Back

SS v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


SS v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2019] IESC 37
Nature of Proceedings:Habeas corpus/Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 May 2019
Judge:Charleton P
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Dependant, Family Member, Free Movement, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National
Country of Origin:Romania, Pakistan.
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/57e4e25a-b338-4d52-a000-096d20f15854/2019_IESC_37_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts On 30 January 2018 the applicant/appellant sought a residence card, claiming to be a qualifying family member dependent on the alleged spouse of his father, she being an EU citizen. The applicant was a 26 year old Pakistani national who claimed to be a family member of the Romanian lady whom his father had purported to marry in November … Read More

Principles:Under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2005, an applicant for a residence card as a qualifying family member of an EU citizen has a right to remain in the State until that application is determined.
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

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

OA and Another v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 384
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Minor, Non-EU National, Residence
Country of Origin:Kenya
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/162b6ca0-95c8-4dff-a865-2bf56323fdff/2014_IEHC_384_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Kenyan national who arrived in Ireland with her infant daughter and applied unsuccessfully for asylum. Shortly after her arrival in Ireland, she met a Nigerian-born German national, and they began a relationship. She became pregnant with his child, the second named applicant, who was born in 2010 and was a German national by … Read More

Principles:

In assessing whether the primary carer of a Union citizen has sufficient resources for the purpose of establishing whether or not he or she obtains a derivative right of residence pursuant to the decision of the ECJ /CJEU in C-200/02 Chen,  the resources do not have to be extant at the time of the primary carer’s application for residence and, in particular, they can be held to exist if the primary carer can obtain them by taking up employment. It therefore follows that a grant of permission pursuant to Chen must be on the basis of stamp 4 conditions, i.e. include the right to work.

Go Back

Wang (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 311
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Jul 2013
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Adult, Child, Dependant, EU Treaty Rights, Family Formation, Family Member, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Member State (Remain in the), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:China / Hungary
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/86f5c09d-0e67-49c9-a8bd-7b4b05b39981/2012_IEHC_311_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The second applicant was a Chinese national who arrived in the State on a student visa in 2004. She met a Hungarian national in 2005 and they married in 2006. She was subsequently granted permission to remain in the State for a five-year period under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 as the  wife … Read More

Principles:

It was not arguable that a parent could claim to be a dependent of a three year old EU citizen child and an adult could not be the dependent of a child. 

It was arguable that a parent might be considered a member of the household of a minor EU citizen and the term household was open to the interpretation that if one individual is an EU citizen all members of the group could be regarded as equal members of the household.

In applying the Chen principles and considering the question of self-sufficiency within those principles, it must be clear what test of self-sufficiency the Minister was applying. The Minister must reach a reasonable and proportionate conclusion in assessing an application as to whether the Chen conditions are met.

Go Back

Scully v Minister for Justice and Equality


Scully
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 466
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Apr 2012
Category:Deportation, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, EU Treaty Rights, Family (Nuclear), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Immigrant, Migrant (Labour), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Ireland / Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were the parents and minor children, whose husband and father, the second applicant was made the subject of a deportation order in 2009, and on foot of which he was deported. An application was made to the Minister to revoke the deportation order but the Minister refused. The applicants sought to quash the refusal to revoke the … Read More

Principles:

The Minister must construe and apply the protections afforded by Article 40.3, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of Ireland and Article 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in light of the personal and family circumstances of applicants, particularly in relation to minor applicants as [Irish and] EU citizens.

The Minister must reach reasonable and proportionate conclusions, given the permanent impact of a deportation order on the personal and family circumstances of applicants, and having regard to any changed facts contained in an application to revoke a deportation order, and to circumstances where there are minor applicants who are [Irish and] EU citizens.

Go Back

X Adeoye & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:X Adeoye & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan, J
Category:Citizenship, Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Citizenship, Country of Origin, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Expulsion Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Foreigner, Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Adeoye family sought to quash a decision of the (then) Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) pursuant to s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to refuse to revoke Mr Adeoye’s deportation order. Mr Adoeye, an architectural student from Nigeria married to an Irish citizen, who had been unsuccessful in an asylum application, and who had … Read More

Principles:It behoves the judicial branch of government to ensure that the fundamental rights in respect of marriage and family life are taken seriously and given “life and reality”. In deciding whether to revoke a deportation order made against the spouse of a citizen, the deciding Minister must weigh the rights of the applicants fairly.
Go Back

Ejerenwa v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:2011 IESC 41, 28th October 2011, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:28 Oct 2011
Judge:Denham C.J.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Asylum Seeker, Border Crossing, Deportation, Detainee, Detention, Entry (Illegal), Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e9112918-ca1e-4951-b432-19ca4e38ba69/2011_IESC_41_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The High Court had found that the Applicant’s detention was in accordance with law. The Applicant appealed this to the Supreme Court. On the evening of 1 August 2011, Gardai stopped a bus which had crossed the … Read More

Principles:
  1. A detention order should contain clear information on its face as to the basis of its jurisdiction. In respect of s. 5(2)(a) of the Immigration Act 2003, in particular, it is necessary for a detention order to state on its face which provision or provisions of s. 5(1) of that Act apply.
  2. A warrant of detention is not required to make statements of law, and it is not necessary for a detention order to show on its face the time permitted for detention, where the period permitted for detention is a matter of general law and/or provided by statute.
Go Back

Om v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:1st August 2011, 2011 IEHC 341, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:01 Aug 2011
Judge:Hogan, G.
Category:Deportation, Detention
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Order, Nationality, Non-EU National, Non-national, Refoulement, Refoulement (Non-), Removal, Removal Order, Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present
Country of Origin:Contested
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bcf48dda-1963-4d70-b922-1aab45121c45/2011_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, David Fracis Om, who had unsuccessfully sought asylum, claimed to be Liberian, but his precise origins were a matter of doubt throughout the asylum process. The Refugee Applications Commissioner had found that he showed a distinct lack of knowledge of Liberian history and geography, … Read More

Principles:
  1. The question of whether a suspicion that a person intends to evade deportation, so as to allow for that person’s detention, is justified under s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999 is an objective one.
  2. Detention of a person (against whom a deportation order has been made) under s. 5 of the Illegal Immigrations Act 1999 must be for the purposes of effecting a deportation order, and it must be evident that the deportation can actually be effected within the eight week statutory period.
  3. Matters relevant to whether there is any likelihood that deportation can be effected within the maximum detention period are:
    whether there is an investigation of an Applicant’s nationality;
      whether it would be necessary for the Minister to consider the issue of refoulement afresh; and
        practicalities re organising deportation.
          Go Back

          Saleem and Spryszynska v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 49
          Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
          Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2011
          Judge:Cooke J.
          Category:EU Treaty Rights
          Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Non-EU National, Residence Document, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
          Country of Origin:Poland and Pakistan
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fa0c6b3c-806d-4cc0-8140-d0c32394ddf0/2011_IEHC_49_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland
          References:Lamasz and Gunduz v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2011] IEHC 50

          Mr Saleem was a national of Pakistan present in Ireland on a student visa. Ms Spryszynska was a Polish national working in Ireland. The Applicants met while both working in a McDonald’s restaurant and married in Naas in December 2008. That same month Mr Saleem made an application for a Residence Card pursuant to Regulation 7 of the European Communities … Read More

          Principles:The Minister is entitled, without infringing Union law or applying the Regulations inconsistently with the provisions of Directive 2004/38/EC, to carry out reasonable checks in order to satisfy himself that the basic conditions of Regulations 6 and 7 are met in the case of the Union citizen and family member and that documentation submitted by way of proofs under Schedule 2 is authentic, provided that these checks do not involve or amount to the imposition of additional administrative obstacles or preconditions to the exercise of the Union citizen’s right to residence and to be joined or accompanied by a family member.
          Go Back

          Lamasz and Gurbuz v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 50
          Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
          Judgment Date/s:16 Feb 2011
          Judge:Cooke J.
          Category:EU Treaty Rights
          Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Non-EU National, Residence Document, Union Citizen
          Country of Origin:Poland and Turkey
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/31a5ff6d-c853-4f64-aad9-3fc760663baf/2011_IEHC_50_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland

          Ms Lamasz was a Polish national working in Ireland in a Turkish restaurant. Mr Gurbuz was a Turkish national. The Applicants met in Limerick in 2006 and became engaged in 2008. They were married in Clonmel in 2009. In April 2009 Mr Gurbuz made an application for a Residence Card pursuant to Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Free Movement … Read More

          Principles:In an application for a Residence Card where evidence of employment had been submitted, it was not a valid ground for rejection that officials had merely been ‘unable to make contact’ with the employers in question
          Go Back

          Zada and Sirkovskaja v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochana

          adminLeave a Comment

          Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
          Court/s:High Court
          Citation/s:[2010] IEHC 341
          Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
          Judgment Date/s:01 Oct 2010
          Judge:Cooke J.
          Category:EU Treaty Rights
          Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Non-EU National, Residence Document, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
          Country of Origin:Iran and Estonia
          URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/777cd4d8-cf5d-4a80-963e-7a7e57de17ea/2010_IEHC_341_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
          Geographic Focus:Ireland

          The Applicants were a married couple: Mr Zada was an Iranian national who had unsuccessfully applied for asylum in Ireland; Ms Sirkovskaja was an Estonian national in full time employment. The Applicants married in February 2007 and Mr Zada applied for a residence card under Article 9 of Directive 2004/38/EC as a family member and spouse of a Union citizen. … Read More

          Principles:The Minister is entitled to refuse a residence card to an Applicant unless and until he produces a valid passport.
          Go Back