Berkeley Solicitors recently received a very successful and significant decision in which our client was granted naturalisation having been on Stamp 0 for a period of over five years preceding the application. This is an exceptional decision given the Department’s suggestions that stamp 0 residence permission is a low-level immigration status which is not intended to be reckonable for Citizenship and is granted for a limited and specific stay in Ireland.
This author has yet to write their bio.Meanwhile lets just say that we are proud berkeleysolicitors contributed a whooping 92 entries.
Entries by berkeleysolicitors
On the 19th December 2019, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in the case of Subhan and Ali v the Minister for Justice and Equality. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was the meaning of the term ‘household of the Union Citizen’ for the purposes of the Citizens’ Directive. Ms Justice Baker ultimately upheld the decision of the High Court in finding that the criterion of ‘membership of the same household’ is not simply established where family members live under the same roof. Rather, members of the household of the Union citizen must be those persons who are some way central to the family life of the Union citizen.
Berkeley Solicitors has received a second decision in which the Department of Justice and Equality has agreed to retrospectively amend Stamp 2A permission, incorrectly assigned to our client, to Stamp 3 immigration permission.
Congratulations to the almost 2,000 people who were conferred with Irish citizenship at ceremonies in Co. Kerry on Monday 9th December 2019. We especially wish to congratulate a number of our clients who have recently received positive naturalisation decisions.
Berkeley Solicitors has recently received a significant decision in which the Department of Justice and Equality has agreed to retrospectively amend Stamp 2A permission, incorrectly assigned to our client, to Stamp 3 immigration permission for a number of years. We believe that this is an extremely important and highly positive precedent for others who may have been issued the wrong residence permissions and confirms that, if appropriate, the Department of Justice and Equality can back date residence permission retrospectively.
On 29th October 2019, Mr Justice Humphreys delivered his judgement in I.I (Nigeria) v Minister for Justice and Equality in relation to the 12-month time limit to apply for Family Reunification under Section 56(8) of the International Protection Act 2015. The high court judge found in favour of the State.
The Court of Appeal have delivered their much-awaited judgement today in the case of Jones v Minister for Justice and Equality. Applications for naturalisation have been on hold since a judgement from the High Court in July 2019. In dealing with the High Court’s finding the Court of Appeal held that this was not a correct interpretation of Section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended).
Our office continues to meet clients whose lives are severely negatively impacted by holding Stamp 3 permission. Persons on Stamp 3 immigration permission are restricted from taking up employment or working in Ireland. Many adults, who wish to work and integrate into Ireland are prevented from doing so unless their area of expertise or work experience leaves the option of an employment permit open to them. However, the vast majority of occupations are ineligible for employment permits.
The general scheme of the Employment Permits (Consolidation and Amendment) Bill 2019 has been published. The aim of the Bill is to consolidate existing legislation, as the Government believes any further amendment to the existing Employment Permit Acts 2003-2014 would significantly increase the complexity of the current system. Major changes proposed by the Bill including streamlining the processes for ‘trusted partner’ and renewal applications, and making the system more agile and easier to modify to meet changing economic circumstances, technological advances and process changes as they arise.
The Supreme Court have accepted a “leapfrog” appeal by the Minister and State against a High Court decision concerning the definition of “child” as referred to in the International Protection Act 2015. This means that the State’s appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and be directly heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judges have emphasised that the definition of “child” in relation to the 2015 Act has the potential to relate to any case regarding non-biological minors who are claimed to be the child of person who has international protection.