The High Court has dismissed Iram Gul’s judicial review challenge to the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to uphold the refusal of her application for a residence card as a permitted family member of her brother, a British citizen.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2018, Mr Justice David Keane found that the Minister had given clear and cogent reasons for deciding that the evidence did not establish that Ms Gul was dependent on her brother in China or had been a member of his household there. The court rejected her grounds that the decision was unreasonable and that inadequate reasons breached fair procedures.
Ms Gul, a Pakistani national, said she entered Ireland on 5 March 2013 and lived with her brother and sister-in-law. She applied for a residence card in June 2013, relying on claims that she had been financially supported during her medical education in China and was a member of her brother’s household. An earlier refusal and review were followed by a further application in 2015. The Minister refused that application in April 2016, and a review upheld the refusal on 20 April 2017.
The Minister’s review decision said the documents did not show that Ms Gul had lived as a member of her brother’s household in the country from which she travelled to Ireland, and that the evidence of financial dependence was unsatisfactory. The judgment records that the review officer had invited further supporting documents in May 2016, but none were submitted.
Justice Keane said the applicable rules required Ms Gul to establish that, in China, she was either dependent on her brother or a member of his household. The evidence included a limited number of money transfers in small amounts at irregular intervals between 2009 and 2013. The judge noted that little information had been provided about her personal or family circumstances in China. No evidence established that she had belonged to her brother’s household there; the limited material suggested he had not lived in China.
The court’s decision addressed the challenge to the reasons and reasonableness of the 2017 review decision. It did not grant the requested order quashing that decision: the judicial review application was dismissed.