The High Court quashed decisions refusing visa appeals by four Pakistani applicants and sent their applications back to the Minister for Justice and Equality for fresh consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2019, Mr Justice Max Barrett found that the Minister had not properly considered evidence of financial dependency and had relied on several unreasonable grounds. The court did not decide that the applicants qualified for visas or that they were dependent. It found that the refusals could not stand and ordered fresh consideration.
The four applicants are extended family members of a fifth applicant, a UK citizen living in the UK who wished to bring them to Ireland under the Citizens’ Rights Directive. Their visa applications were made in December 2015 and refused on appeal in August 2018. The fifth applicant is identified in the judgment as their relative and as the first applicant’s cousin.
For the first and second applicants, the court said regular money transfers had been made, while statutory declarations stated that the money was necessary for their support. The Minister could decide what weight to give those declarations, but could not say that no documentary evidence had been provided. The court also found that the appeals for the third and fourth applicants raised financial dependency, but the Minister’s decisions did not consider that issue.
The judge rejected the argument that household membership had been raised in the appeals. He also found no basis to conclude that the Minister had required the UK-based applicant to be in Ireland before visas could be granted, or that motive featured in the decisions. A rise in applications from Pakistan could justify careful scrutiny, the court said, but did not by itself establish abuse of rights in these applicants’ cases.
The court found that the Minister had acted unreasonably by referring generically to public policy concerns without explaining how they applied to the applicants. It was also unreasonable to view the absence of advance arrangements for school places or permanent accommodation negatively, as the UK-based applicant was not legally required to make those arrangements before moving. The court further found that the Minister’s conclusion that the first applicant’s relationship to the fifth applicant had not been established was erroneous given the birth certificates and submissions provided.
The court granted certiorari and remitted the applications to the Minister. The judgment left the substantive visa decisions for fresh consideration.