The High Court has refused a Nigerian mother’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of her application to reside in Ireland with her British-citizen daughter. The court found the Minister was entitled to examine whether the support offered by third parties was available and sufficient for the child’s proposed residence.
The mother sought to quash the Minister’s decision of 8 July 2014 and a declaration that her daughter’s EU rights entitled her to reside in Ireland without restriction. The daughter was born in the United Kingdom and was three at the time of the challenged decision. The mother was her primary carer.
The mother had no apparent resources of her own. The judgment records that her Irish partner provided her with €50 a week, sometimes increasing this to €75, and paid the child’s day-care costs. The mother and child also lived rent-free with a host. The partner had sworn an affidavit undertaking to continue providing support. The Minister’s refusal letter said there was insufficient evidence that the mother and child could support themselves without relying on public funds, including because the mother had not supplied bank statements in her own name.
The applicants argued that EU law did not require resources to come from a particular source, and that support from the mother’s partner could count. They also said the decision did not explain the evidential shortfall clearly enough. The Minister argued that the question was whether resources were likely to be available in the future, and that the evidence did not establish the amount, availability or adequacy of the partner’s support.
Justice Stewart accepted that EU law did not prescribe the source of resources, but said authorities could check their existence, amount and availability. She found the Minister was entitled to make enquiries because the proposed support and accommodation came from people unrelated to the child and were provided to the mother rather than directly to the child. The child’s access to resources through her mother could be considered, but the court said the child did not automatically have a right to remain in Ireland for more than three months without meeting the resources and comprehensive sickness-insurance conditions.
The court also rejected the argument that refusal would necessarily force the child to leave the EU. The mother’s claim that she could not reside in the UK was unsupported by an explanation or evidence, and the court noted the child was entitled to reside there.
The judge found the refusal letter made the basis of the decision clear and saw no reason to interfere with it. The High Court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not state that a deportation order was made; it records that the Minister had issued a proposal to deport the mother.