The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of Faizaan Ali Agha’s appeal over a visa for his mother, finding several errors in the decision-making process. The matter was remitted to the Minister for fresh consideration; the court did not grant the visa or decide the application itself.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 23 December 2019. Mr Agha, a British national living and working in Ireland, had applied for a visa for his mother, who lives in Pakistan and is unwell. He claimed she depended on him. The Minister refused the application in April 2018 and rejected the appeal in March 2019.
The judge said the process had taken just over two years from the visa application to the appeal decision, which seemed a very long time. He also rejected the Minister’s preliminary objection that Mr Agha’s mother should have been joined as a co-applicant. The objection had not been raised during the application or appeal process, and the Minister had cited no authority showing that Mr Agha could not bring proceedings as the primary beneficiary under the EU directive.
The court answered “yes” to four pleaded legal questions. It found that the appeal decision appeared to accept that Mr Agha and his brothers contributed money needed for their mother’s essential needs, which supported dependency, while also treating him as merely a conduit for his siblings’ money. The judge said those positions were internally inconsistent.
The Minister had also failed to consider how the mother’s illness affected her ability to support herself. The court withheld details of the illness to protect her privacy. It further found that requiring evidence of her financial arrangements going back to her 2000 divorce, nearly 17 years before the initial application, breached fair procedures and went beyond a permissible factual inquiry.
The judge also held that the decision’s reference to the integrity of the immigration system, the Common Travel Area and state security was unlawful for reasons given in an earlier judgment. He noted that the decision suggested the mother might present a security concern without meaningful detail. On the fifth pleaded question, about the examination of appeal submissions and documents, he said the decision’s deficiencies identified elsewhere in the judgment were sufficient.
The court granted the requested order of certiorari and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration. It made no finding that the mother was entitled to a visa.