The High Court has declined all relief sought in a judicial review challenging the refusal of EU Treaty Rights applications. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 18 February 2020.
The applications were made under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. The first applicant claimed to be a British national, the husband of the second applicant and the father of the third, a minor. The Minister’s decisions of 20 July 2018 refused the applications, citing concerns about whether the applicants had established the required family relationship and whether the second applicant was genuinely exercising free movement rights in Ireland.
The Minister questioned inconsistencies in the documents submitted. A UK deed poll showed that Faridoun Salehi changed his name to Faridoun Khdir Aziz in January 2016, while a marriage certificate dated October 2012 used the latter name. A birth certificate for the child, dated September 2014, named her father as Faridoun Khdir. The Minister also said the certificates and translations were not attested and that the applicants had not provided documentary support for their explanation of the name differences.
The court held that the applicants bore the burden of proving the family relationship. It found nothing unreasonable, unlawful or irrational in the Minister’s refusal on the evidence submitted. The judge also noted that the first applicant gave two inconsistent explanations in affidavits about his surname in Iraq and the reason for the name change. The court said the Minister had given the applicants a further opportunity to clarify matters, but they had not done so to his satisfaction.
On the free movement issue, the first applicant had submitted a letter said to be from his landlord, permitting direct contact. After enquiries, the landlord indicated that someone else was the sole tenant at the named property. The judge held that the weight given to those enquiries was for the Minister and found no breach of fair procedures or other illegality.
The court confined its consideration to the two central findings challenged in the proceedings. It noted that other arguments raised in submissions, including whether the Minister considered irrelevant matters or failed to provide “every facility” to the applicants, did not arise from the pleadings. The judge said that even if the passport issue had been an irrelevant consideration, he would not have granted relief in the circumstances. The court dismissed the application for relief.