The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s decision refusing to treat a Bangladeshi man as a permitted family member of his brother, a naturalised British citizen living and working in Ireland. Mr Justice Max Barrett ordered the matter returned to the Minister for fresh consideration.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as MD. Jaglul Hoque Shishu and MD. Jabed Miah, are brothers. Miah sought a residence card, claiming he had been dependent on Shishu in England. The Minister’s review decision of 12 October 2018 found he was not dependent and did not establish that he had been a member of his brother’s household there.
The court held that the Minister had applied the 2015 Free Movement Regulations incorrectly. The judgment said the Minister treated the application as failing the threshold test for dependency under regulation 5(1), but also assessed evidence using criteria in regulation 5(5)(a), which apply at a later stage. On that approach, the Minister identified documentary shortcomings on matters that did not properly arise for consideration.
On household membership, the court noted extensive material addressed to Miah at his brother’s English address, including health-service letters, bank statements, a gym form and other records. It questioned whether the Minister had given due regard to the obligation to facilitate residence under the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive. The judge also said the meaning of “household” could be wider than the Minister’s reasoning allowed, and that requiring details about everyone at the address, their relationships and the period of residence appeared to go too far.
The court also found the Minister’s approach unfair because applicants received no general guidance about the type of material sought in applications of this kind. It distinguished that issue from a duty to advise applicants on the evidence required in an individual case: the judgment said there was no such case-specific obligation.
However, the judge rejected the claim that the Minister acted unfairly by refusing the application on matters not put to Miah for comment. The judgment said there was no indication that the Minister had a specific documentary expectation that should have been identified. It also upheld the Minister’s conclusion that the evidence did not establish dependency, finding that this was a decision the Minister could properly reach on the material before him.
The court granted certiorari, quashing the decision, and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration. It did not itself grant a residence card or decide that Miah qualified as a permitted family member.