The High Court quashed a decision refusing a visa appeal by an Indian mother seeking to join her daughter in Ireland, after finding deficiencies in the Minister’s assessment of whether the mother depended on her daughter.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 11 July 2019 in proceedings brought by Samyukta Chittajallu and Niveditha Chittajallu Venkata against the Minister for Justice and Equality. The court ordered certiorari and remitted the matter to the Minister for further consideration. It did not decide that the mother had established dependency or direct that a visa be granted.
The application was made in April 2016 under the EU free movement rules, on the basis that the mother was a “qualifying family member” of her daughter, a UK national. The judgment says the applicants are mother and daughter. The daughter registered with the Irish Medical Council in August 2017 and later took up employment at a Dublin hospital.
In a review decision dated 31 October 2018, the Minister said he was not satisfied that the mother depended on her daughter. The mother’s case included claimed financial and social dependence. Justice Barrett found that the Minister had treated the medical evidence as including only one receipt for the mother, although multiple medical receipts had been submitted. The Minister had not meaningfully considered social dependence, and might have reached a different decision had he understood the evidence.
On the mother’s financial means, the Minister’s initial decision criticised the lack of documentary evidence about her own resources. The appeal materials said she had no personal finances, savings, pension or welfare support. The review decision then said a letter from an Indian pensions or social welfare authority was expected to show she had no claims. The court said that expectation should have been made clear in the initial decision so the applicants could address it on appeal. It described leaving them unaware of that specific expectation as profoundly unfair.
The court rejected other challenges. It held that the Minister could question the source of an amount said to come from investments or assets in India where evidence of asset sales had not been provided. It also found that concerns about the applicants’ joint account and the absence of verifiable transfers were open to the Minister on the bank statements before him. The court found no general failure to consider the submitted material, apart from the medical-receipt error, and did not accept that the Minister had imposed excessively difficult evidential requirements.
The judgment therefore set aside the review decision because of the identified deficiencies and returned the matter to the Minister for a fresh consideration.