Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Sangeeta Rana, Lehrasib Ali
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2024] IESC 46
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:18 Oct 2024
Judge:O’Malley, I., Dunne, E, Hogan, G., Collins, M., Donnelly A.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Good character, Regularisation, Residence Permit, Student, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:India, Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c4be3d7-0c16-4132-bbcc-d5aa817f2816/2024_IESC_46.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: Ms Rana and Mr Ali were in Ireland on student permissions. Upon their expiration, they each entered into what were later held to be marriages of convenience with EU citizens. They both held residence permissions in the State as spouses of EU citizens. Their permissions were both respectively revoked. Ms. Rana’s was revoked for entering into a marriage of … Read More

Principles:When assessing applications under the Special Scheme for Students and the good character and conduct criteria, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to reassess a question of gravity where a previous permission had been revoked for reasons relating to a marriage of convenience. In giving reasons, it is sufficient for a decision-maker to state that they have considered all the material before them, unless there is some evidence-based reasons for thinking otherwise.
Go Back

Odum & ors v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2)

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:14 Nov 2023
Judge:O’Donnell, D.; Charleton P.; Baker M.; Woulfe S.; Hogan G.; Murray B.; Collins M.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Illegal Stay, Regularisation
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/6865a1e3-8b82-44cf-83f7-5e2b97e6b881/6b637c5d-275f-4e21-9aff-0dac512ebd94/2023_IESC_26.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. Odum, a Nigerian national, arrived to Ireland irregularly in November 2007. He married EA, also a Nigerian national in December 2007, however, the marriage was not registered and therefore was not considered lawful. They went on to have three children. The couple separated in 2014. In that same year, Mr. Odum applied for residency, but this application refused … Read More

Principles:There are a number of circumstances in which a non-citizen who can establish a sufficient connection to the State is the same as a citizen, and where, therefore, the Article 40.1 guarantee of equality as human persons before the law, entitles them to rely on the same rights as a citizen would have. Non-citizen children, may in this regard, be entitled to the rights of the care and company of their parent. However, where the parent is in a precarious situation in the State, exceptional circumstances would be necessary to invalidate a deportation order.
Go Back

A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)

EMNireland


A (A Minor) -v- International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Labour Market Access)
Respondent/Defendant:International Protection Appeals Tribunal
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 141
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Mar 2023
Judge:Simons, G.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Child, Child Labour, Common European Asylum System (CEAS), Family Member, Minor, Reception Conditions, Reception Conditions (Material), Regularisation
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/a6ff02c1-775d-46fd-b3d7-e4c89cf081b2/3dfbcb87-96e0-4360-a374-0c4447b6a4bd/2023_IEHC_141.pdf/pdf

Facts: The claimants were two parents and their child, who was under the age of two. The parents previously applied for international protection and their applications were unsuccessful. They were then subject to deportation orders.   Their child was born in April 2021 and an application was made for international protection in respect of the child. The parents contended that they … Read More

Principles:An infant child does not have a right to work in the Irish State, not only under the recast Reception Conditions Directive, but under national law. Thus the parents could not vicariously exercise a right that the child did not hold. The parents also could not derive a right to work from the child applicant.
Go Back

Sobhy v the Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


Sobhy v the Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:The Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2021] IESC 81
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:16 Dec 2021
Judge:Baker M
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Regularisation
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/202b8113-c263-4b55-9f17-01d39a3c6e3c/2021_IESC_81.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a national of Mauritius, arrived in Ireland in 2008 under a scheme to attract foreign students. She studied and worked in Ireland lawfully until 2012. A change in the scheme required the applicant to apply for a change of status. Her two applications were refused. The applicant continued to reside and work in Ireland without an immigration … Read More

Principles:Social welfare benefits under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 cannot accrue to a person who does not have a work permit or immigration permission to be in the State, despite making the relevant statutory contributions.
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

Case C-256/11 – Dereci v Bundesministerium fur Inneres

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Bundesministerium fur Inneres
Court/s:ECJ
Citation/s:[2011] ECR I-0000
Nature of Proceedings:Preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU
Judgment Date/s:15 Nov 2011
Judge:Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Category:EU Treaty Rights
Keywords:Child, Dependant, EU Treaty Rights, Family Life (Right to), Regularisation, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Austria
URL:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0256:EN:HTML
Geographic Focus:Europe

The applicants were third country nationals who wished to live with their EU, and Austrian, citizen family members resident in Austria. The Union citizens had not exercised their free movement rights, and were not dependent on the applicants. All applicants had their applications for residence permits refused. The applicants and the Union citizens wished to live together, but there was … Read More

Principles:

European Union law and, in particular, its provisions on citizenship of the Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from refusing to allow a third country national to reside on its territory, where that third country national wishes to reside with a member of his family who is a citizen of the Union residing in the Member State of which he has nationality, who has never exercised his right to freedom of movement, provided that such refusal does not lead, for the Union citizen concerned, to the denial of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a citizen of the Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

If, in considering, inter alia, a refusal of a residence permit in respect of a third country national, a national court considers that the situation is covered by EU law, it must examine whether the residence permit refusal undermines the right of respect for family life under Article 7 of the Charter. On the other hand, if the national court takes the view that the situation at issue is not covered by EU law, it must undertake an examination under Article 8(1) ECHR.

Go Back