The High Court has refused an Uzbek man’s application for judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s decision not to grant him a long-stay visa to join family members in Ireland. The court held that the material before the Minister did not establish that the applicant had an Article 8 right to family life with them.
Sherozi Khalimov challenged the refusal on the basis that the Minister had failed to consider his individual circumstances and his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. His mother, half-sister and stepfather lived in Ireland under the IBC 05 scheme, and his sister had been granted a visa and joined them. The family relationship and their status are described in the judgment; the court did not find that the applicant was entitled to enter Ireland.
The applicant first sought a student visa to attend University College Cork. That application was refused in June 2008 because the visa office considered that he had not shown sufficient ties to Uzbekistan, had not met student visa requirements, and had vague study plans. A later long-stay visa application was refused because he was over 18 and the visa office considered that granting it might impose a cost on public funds. An appeal was unsuccessful.
For the applicant, counsel argued that the Minister applied a general policy against granting family reunion visas to adult dependent children and had not assessed the applicant’s circumstances, including his claimed financial dependence on his mother. The respondents argued that Article 8 did not apply and that the Minister could take account of immigration policy.
Justice M. H. Clark said the court would not give weight to a letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the general policy because he was not the decision-maker and the circumstances of the letter were unclear. The court accepted that the Minister could set immigration policy, including policies concerning adult applicants, but said ministerial decisions remained subject to legal and human rights obligations.
The judge found that the applicant had never lived in Ireland or another ECHR contracting state and had been separated from his mother since 2001. He was an adult, and the evidence submitted to the Minister did not show additional dependence beyond ordinary emotional ties. The court noted that no evidence had been provided of money sent to Uzbekistan for his maintenance or university fees, contact with his mother and stepfather since 2001, acceptance to a UCC course, or medical support for a later claim about his mental state.
The court concluded that the applicant had not established Article 8 family life on the evidence before the Minister, and therefore could not challenge the visa refusal for failing to consider such rights. It refused the relief sought. The judgment said he could apply again for a student visa if he provided concrete evidence that he met the relevant conditions, including acceptance onto a course, means of support while studying and the likelihood of returning to Uzbekistan.