The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s decisions refusing visa appeals by two siblings of a UK citizen who sought to join him in Ireland, and remitted the applications to a different officer for reconsideration.
In a judgment delivered on 15 November 2023, Ms Justice Jackson found that the Minister had imposed unreasonable evidentiary requirements and an unlawful standard of proof when assessing the applications. She concluded that the decisions could not stand because relevant third-party documents about education fees were treated as absent, while evidence concerning the sponsor’s employment and accommodation was handled unreasonably, irrationally and with uncertainty.
The applicants were Mohammed Alauddin’s brother and sister, both Bangladeshi nationals. They applied for visas as permitted family members, claiming they depended on Mr Alauddin, a dual UK and Bangladeshi citizen who had moved to Ireland. The Minister refused the applications in January 2022 and upheld the refusals on appeal in August 2022, finding that dependency had not been established and that Mr Alauddin had not shown he was exercising free movement rights in Ireland.
The appeal decisions acknowledged payslips and employment documents, and that the payslip amounts appeared in Mr Alauddin’s bank account. They questioned how he could work full time in Ireland given the limited day-to-day spending shown in the account. The judgment records that the decisions did not find the employment or documents false. The applicants had also submitted letters from the siblings’ colleges stating that Mr Alauddin paid their fees. The appeal decisions said there was no documentary evidence supporting those payments.
The judge found that the college letters were relevant supporting evidence and that the decisions’ statement that no such documentary evidence had been received was unreasonable and irrational. She also found the treatment of the employment and accommodation material unreasonable, irrational and uncertain, noting that no finding of falsehood or forgery had been made about it. In light of the overall assessment, she found it difficult to avoid concluding that the Minister had applied a standard higher than the balance of probabilities.
The court rejected the applicants’ separate argument that the Minister had applied an incorrect legal test by requiring free movement rights to be exercised “in a genuine and effective manner”. The judge considered the concern to lie in how the evidence was assessed, rather than that wording alone.
The court granted certiorari quashing both August 2022 appeal decisions and ordered reconsideration by a different Ministerial officer. It did not decide whether the siblings ultimately qualify for visas. The judge’s indicative view was that the applicants should receive their costs, but listed the case for further submissions on costs and final orders on 1 December 2023.