Judgment: 2019-05-13 · Court archive

High Court declines relief over Chinese national’s long-term stay application

The court held that a short-term C visa could not be varied under the relevant law into permission for long-term residence, and declined to consider challenges to the Minister’s decision.

The High Court · [2019] IEHC 310

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Hui Zhu Chen (Applicant)
  • Max Barrett (Judge)
What

The court held that a short-term C visa could not be varied under the relevant law into permission for long-term residence, and declined to consider challenges to the Minister’s decision.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has declined to grant relief to Hui Zhu Chen in a judicial review concerning her attempt to remain in Ireland on a long-term basis. The court held that the statutory provision she relied on did not provide a route to that permission from her short-term visa.

The High Court has declined to grant relief to Hui Zhu Chen in a judicial review concerning her attempt to remain in Ireland on a long-term basis. The court held that the statutory provision she relied on did not provide a route to that permission from her short-term visa.

Ms Chen, a Chinese national, came to Ireland on 14 November 2013 on a 90-day C visa. On 19 February 2014, she applied under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004 to stay in Ireland long term. The application failed, and she began judicial review proceedings.

Mr Justice Max Barrett said C visas facilitated short-term visits and were not a route to long-term residence. A separate D visa was available to visa-required people seeking long-term residence, but Ms Chen had not applied for one.

The judge interpreted section 4(7), which provides that permission may be renewed or varied on application, as covering renewal or variation of permission already granted. It did not allow an applicant to seek a different class of visa. He said the Minister could not properly grant Ms Chen’s application under that provision.

The court said the application was not one contemplated by the statutory provision cited, so it was not necessary to consider Ms Chen’s criticisms of the Minister’s decision. The judgment noted that the Minister had engaged with the application in detail, but said this did not give the Minister jurisdiction or Ms Chen a right under section 4(7).

The court also said Ms Chen had suffered no loss or damage and was not entitled to damages. It declined to grant the relief she sought. The judgment does not specify the relief requested or detail any separate order beyond that decision.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review