The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal in a dispute over the refusal of a residence card for Shakeel Ahmed Dar’s mother. It held that dependency under the relevant EU free movement rules required material support for essential needs, assessed in light of the applicant’s financial and social conditions. The court said emotional ties or a separate test of social dependency were not enough.
Mr Dar, a UK national who came to Ireland in 2004 and operates a business here, applied for a residence card for his non-EU/EEA-national mother in August 2016. She had come to Ireland that year and was living with him. The Minister refused the application in June 2017, and a statutory review was unsuccessful. After an earlier judicial review was compromised and the matter returned for reconsideration, the Minister affirmed the refusal in August 2019.
Mr Dar challenged that review decision. The High Court quashed it, finding that the Minister had failed to give proper consideration to the emotional and social dependence between mother and son. The Minister appealed, arguing that there was no standalone test based on emotional or social dependence.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Donnelly, with Justices Noonan and Murray agreeing, the Court of Appeal said the test was whether the family member relied on material support from the EU citizen to meet essential needs and, having regard to her financial and social conditions, was unable to support herself materially. Financial and social conditions formed part of that assessment; they did not create separate routes to dependency.
The court said the mother’s application referred to accommodation, groceries and relatively minor health bills, but provided no information or documents about her own financial circumstances. It said the Minister had taken account of the accommodation provided by Mr Dar, while living with an adult child could not, by itself, establish dependency. The court concluded that the Minister applied the correct test and was entitled to refuse the application given the absence of information about the applicant’s financial circumstances.
The appeal court set aside the High Court’s orders of certiorari and costs in Mr Dar’s favour. It indicated that the Minister should receive the costs of the appeal and the High Court proceedings, to be adjudicated if not agreed. Mr Dar had 14 days to seek a brief supplemental hearing on costs; in default of such an application, the proposed costs order would be made.