The High Court has refused a judicial review application challenging the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to uphold the refusal of an EU residence card to a Pakistani national seeking to join his British citizen cousin in Ireland.
Mr Justice David Keane delivered judgment on 25 July 2018 in *Subhan and Ali v Minister for Justice and Equality* [2018] IEHC 458. The case concerned a review decision made on 15 August 2016 under regulations that have since been revoked. The Minister had upheld an earlier refusal of Mr Ali’s application for a residence card as a “permitted family member” of Mr Subhan.
The regulations covered certain other family members who, in the country they came from, were dependent on a Union citizen or members of that citizen’s household. The Minister concluded that Mr Ali had not established either basis in the United Kingdom, from where he came to Ireland.
The applicants argued that “member of the household” should mean living in the same household as the Union citizen, rather than belonging to a household headed by that citizen. The judge rejected that interpretation. Relying on persuasive decisions from courts and tribunals in England and Wales, he held that the phrase meant membership of the Union citizen’s household, not simply shared residence in the same household. He found the Minister had not erred in law in concluding that Mr Ali had failed to establish that he belonged to Mr Subhan’s household in the UK.
On dependency, the judgment reviewed evidence of money transfers. Receipts showed seven transfers totalling £4,675 between February 2009 and May 2010. Mr Ali’s account statements showed four later transfers totalling £700 between November 2014 and January 2015, and a further €237 transfer in February 2015. The applicants also said Mr Subhan had paid Mr Ali’s rent and study costs and provided general living expenses while he studied in the UK, but the judgment noted that those payments were not supported by evidence.
The judge said the applicant had to satisfy the Minister, with cogent evidence including documentation, about the amount and duration of support and its effect on his personal financial circumstances. He found nothing in the review decision to suggest the Minister had ignored evidence or given unreasonable reasons for finding that dependence had not been established.
The court refused the application. It did not grant the requested order quashing the Minister’s decision.