The High Court has quashed a decision refusing Qaiser Mehmood’s review application for a residence card as a permitted family member of his brother, Khalid Mahmood, a British citizen living in Ireland. The court found that the Minister had not explained why the evidence failed to show that the brothers shared a household in the United Kingdom.
Mr Justice David Keane ruled on 26 June 2019 that the review decision of 11 April 2017 did not give the essential reasons for rejecting Mr Mehmood’s evidence. The court ordered certiorari quashing that decision and remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration. It did not decide whether Mr Mehmood qualifies for a residence card; that question remains for the Minister.
Mr Mehmood, a Pakistani national, had applied for a residence card on the basis that he was dependent on his brother or had been a member of his household before coming to Ireland. The Minister’s initial refusal, issued in March 2016, said there was insufficient evidence about who lived at the UK address, how long the brothers lived there, and who owned or leased the property. It also rejected the evidence of financial dependence.
In seeking a review, Mr Mehmood’s then immigration advisers submitted further documents said to support his household-membership claim. The judge noted that the review decision simply stated that he had not provided satisfactory evidence that he was a member of his brother’s household in the country from which he travelled to Ireland. It did not explain why the additional material was inadequate.
The judge said the assessment of whether the evidence established household membership was primarily for the Minister, not the court. But Mr Mehmood was entitled to reasons for the decision, particularly because he had supplied substantial additional documentation in response to the deficiencies identified in the first refusal.
The court rejected Mr Mehmood’s arguments that the Minister had to set out a specific test for household membership and that the Minister’s approach deprived the relevant EU law provision of its effect. It also noted that an allegation that the Minister had wrongly required proof of both dependence and household membership was not pursued at the hearing.
The judge said the review decision disclosed neither an essential rationale on its face nor one that could be inferred from its terms and context. The court reserved any appropriate ancillary and consequential orders for further submissions from the parties.