The High Court has refused Mohammad Faisal Ur Rehman’s application for judicial review of a decision refusing him a residence card as a permitted family member of his brother, a British citizen exercising EU free movement rights in Ireland.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice David Keane on 21 December 2018, concerned the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision of 14 April 2017 to uphold an earlier refusal. The Minister had found that Mr Rehman did not establish that, in the UK, he was either dependent on his brother or a member of his brother’s household. Those were the grounds on which he sought recognition as a permitted family member under the relevant regulations.
Mr Rehman said he had lived with his brother in Leeds from 2008 to 2015 and that his brother provided accommodation, food, travel expenses and pocket money. He said he could not work in the UK and had no bank account there. His brother and he moved to Ireland in 2015; Mr Rehman entered without a visa, according to the judgment. The brothers later lived together in rented accommodation. Mr Rehman’s brother’s wife and children remained in the UK.
The Minister’s review decision cited the evidence submitted about the UK address. It said some bills bore Mr Rehman’s name, while the documents did not establish that the household was his brother’s or that Mr Rehman belonged to it. The court found that the Minister gave clear reasons and had applied the correct legal test: the required dependence or household membership had to be established in the UK, the country from which Mr Rehman came.
The judge rejected Mr Rehman’s argument that the Minister had interpreted “member of the household” too narrowly. The court held that sharing an address with a Union citizen was not enough by itself; the applicant had to show that he had lived under the roof of a household that could be said to be that of the Union citizen.
The court also rejected challenges based on inadequate reasons, irrationality and fair procedures. It found that the Minister was entitled to assess the documents Mr Rehman had chosen to submit, including bills bearing his name, without first inviting him to explain them. The judgment noted that the Minister’s reference to support “in the State” appeared either irrelevant if read literally or likely to be a typographical error for “in the UK”; either way, it did not undermine the decision.
The application for judicial review was refused. The court did not grant a residence card or decide the separate proposed deportation matter mentioned in the judgment.