The High Court has refused a judicial review brought by Nauman Qureshi and his brother Usama Qureshi over the refusal of a residence card to Usama under EU free movement rules.
The Minister for Justice and Equality refused the application in November 2015 and upheld that decision on review in September 2016. Usama, a Pakistani national, had applied as a permitted family member of Nauman, a British citizen exercising free movement rights in Ireland. Their application for judicial review challenged the review decision, including its reference to the 2015 Regulations.
The court heard that a transitional provision meant the review should be determined under the 2006 Regulations. The Minister accepted that the review letter incorrectly cited the 2015 Regulations, explaining that an updated template had been used. The review recommendation and officer’s decision referred to the 2006 rules. The court accepted that evidence and found that the review had in fact been carried out under those rules.
The refusal decision said the brothers had not provided sufficient evidence that Usama depended on Nauman before coming to Ireland. The submitted material included records of money transfers from Nauman, who gave an address in Berkshire, to Usama or their parents in Pakistan. The decision said those records did not establish the extent of dependency or show that Usama could not support himself at subsistence level without the support. It also said the documents did not show that he had belonged to Nauman’s household in the United Kingdom.
The applicants argued that the 2006 rules gave more favourable treatment than the 2015 rules, but the judge said it was unnecessary to decide that issue. The application had been made on the basis that Usama was dependent on Nauman in Pakistan, and the judge saw no explanation of how that claim would have been prejudiced by the rules cited in the letter.
The Minister also objected to several arguments raised in the applicants’ written submissions shortly before the hearing because they had not been included in the grounds on which leave to seek judicial review was granted. The judge upheld that objection. He nevertheless discussed those arguments briefly, expressly treating his observations as obiter, and said they would not alter the result.
The court refused the application for judicial review. It did not grant an order quashing the review decision.