The High Court has refused all relief sought by Raymond Holland in two judicial review proceedings concerning his adult stepdaughter’s application for an Irish residence card based on alleged EU Treaty Rights. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 9 December 2019.
The stepdaughter, a non-EU national, entered Ireland on a visit visa on 9 June 2016. An application for a residence card followed. The Minister for Justice and Equality refused it on 30 March 2017, saying evidence of dependence had not been submitted. A review application was lodged, and further evidence was later provided.
In December 2018, Holland began proceedings seeking an order requiring the Minister to decide the review and a declaration that the delay breached EU law rights to an effective remedy or good administration. The Minister issued a decision refusing the review on 29 March 2019; that decision became the subject of separate judicial review proceedings.
On the 2018 proceedings, the court said the order compelling a decision was redundant because the decision had issued. It declined to grant the requested declaration, finding no useful or legitimate purpose for it and no evidence that it would help secure more prompt handling of a future application. The court therefore declined to consider the issues raised in those proceedings.
The separate challenge concerned the refusal of the review application. The judgment records that the application ultimately failed because no evidence was provided of the stepdaughter’s dependency in the third country from which she came. Holland argued that this evidence had not been requested. The court said the Minister had repeatedly sought evidence of “dependency” and, applying the EU law principles discussed in the judgment, that meant evidence of a need for material support in the state of origin or the state from which the applicant came when applying to join the EU citizen.
The court noted that Holland had legal advice and said he was presumed to know what evidence was being sought. It also observed that there was no evidence the Minister had concealed the nature of the requested evidence. The court did not find that such concealment occurred; it said that if it had occurred, a breach of fair procedures might arise.
The court refused all relief sought. It directed that the parties be heard further on costs; the judgment did not determine costs.