Posts

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PUBLISHES NOTICE FOR NON-EEA FAMILY MEMBERS OF BRITISH CITIZENS WHO ARE RESIDING IN IRELAND

On 17th September 2020, the Department of Justice published an updated notice regarding the status of non-EEA family members of British citizens who are residing in Ireland.

The Brexit transition period is due to end on 31st December 2020.

The notice states as follows:

From the end of the transition period, non-EEA family members of British citizens that are newly resident in Ireland will not come within the scope of the EU Free Movement Directive. A separate preclearance scheme will apply to such persons seeking to reside in the State, and they should be in possession of a valid travel document and, if required, an Irish entry visa or transit visa for the State.”

We at Berkeley Solicitors welcome this update but the lack of clarity is concerning. The notice does not provide any information as to what will happen to applicants who have pending EUFam residence card applications that remain undetermined by 31st December 2020.

Our clients still do not have confirmation of what immigration rules and financial thresholds will be applied to residence/ pre clearance applications from the family members of British citizens after the 31st December 2020.

While the notice states that a separate preclearance scheme will apply to such persons seeking to reside in the State after the end of the transition period, details of the new preclearance scheme have not yet been announced.

We are also aware that a large number of residence applications for non-EEA family members of British citizens are taking considerably longer than six months to be determined. This is of great concern as the Minister is breaching the obligation to determine these applications within a six-month timeframe, thereby putting British citizens and their family members at risk that they may be refused after the 31st December 2020.

The full notice can be read here.

If you or your family are impacted by these issues please do not hesitate to contact the office.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON TEST FOR DEPENDENCY IN EU TREATY RIGHTS CASES

On 10th June 2020, Mr Justice Humphreys delivered his judgement in the case of Asif Rashid and Qasim Rashid v The Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IEHC 333.

The first-named applicant is a British citizen, and his brother, the second-named applicant, is a citizen of Pakistan.

The central issue in the case was whether the Minister for Justice had erred in finding that no relationship of dependency had been established between the first and second-named applicants.

The Court ultimately upheld the decision of the Minister for Justice to refuse the second-named applicant’s application for residence based on his dependency on his EU Citizen brother.

Mr Justice Humphreys emphasised that the test for dependency in EU Treaty Rights cases is “definitively to be found in the CJEU jurisprudence, the most helpful summary of which is at paras. 19-28 of Case C-423/12 Reyes v. Migrationsverket”.

The Court found that the concept of dependency as defined in national case law, most notably in the case of VK v Minister for Justice and Law Reform [2019] IECA 232, does not change or add to the test for dependency established by existing CJEU jurisprudence.

In this regard the Court stated at paragraph 10:

“…the test has been phrased in different ways in different cases so the V.K. judgment should most certainly not be treated as a statute imposing another finer mesh of procedural and substantive legal complexity on top of the existing law. The really central point is the one [Baker J] makes at para. 81 of her judgment that “The test for dependence is one of EU law”. Therefore, any paraphrases in national jurisprudence are just that; and any language in any Irish case that is not found in CJEU jurisprudence is not creating or changing the CJEU jurisprudence. The latter remains the primary source of the meaning of dependency irrespective of any decisions at national level.”

The Court stated that the key issues in establishing dependency are the regularity of money transfers to the dependant applicant over a significant period, the necessity of those payments in enabling the dependant to support himself or herself in their country of origin, the financial and social conditions of the dependant, and the demonstration of a real situation of dependence.

Importantly, the Court emphasised that the payment of significant sums on a regular basis to the dependant in the country of origin, will not, by itself, constitute sufficient evidence of dependency.

This judgment of the High Court can be seen as a more conservative approach to the concept of dependency in EU Treaty Rights cases.

The full judgement can be read here.

If you or a family member have queries about EU Treaty Rights, please do not hesitate to contact the office.

SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES “DURABLE PARTNER” FOR PURPOSES OF EU TREATY RIGHTS APPLICATIONS

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement on the 2nd June 2020 in the case of Pervaiz v Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 27. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision of the High Court, with respect to an application for a EU Fam residence card by the non EU citizen partner of a Spanish citizen pursuant to the EU Free Movement of Persons (Regulations) 2015. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling that the 2015 Regulations do not correctly transpose the Citizens Directive by reason of the absence of specific and detailed criteria with regards to the definition of “durable partner”. The Supreme Court also disagreed with the finding of the High Court, which took issue with the fact that the relevant parts of the Regulation simply repeat the words of the Directive itself. The Supreme Court also disagreed that the Minister had applied an unlawful requirement, requiring a period of two years cohabitation in order to meet the definition of a partner for the purposes of the regulations.

A preliminary issue in the proceedings was whether there was an issue that the proceedings were taken in the name of the Non-EU citizen applicant only, without his EU citizen partner being a party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court followed the findings of a number of rulings in the High Court that the applicant had the required standing to issue the proceedings in his own name. The Court also noted that the EU citizen in this case had supported the proceedings on affidavit.

The judgement provides a legal analysis of the differing rights of persons who can apply under the Regulations as “qualifying family members”, such as spouses and direct ascendants and descendants as opposed to “permitted family members” such as partners. The Court highlighted the varying rights of such applicants, with “permitted family members” only having a right to have their application “facilitated” and a “detailed examination of their personal circumstances” undertaken.

The Court held that the definition of “partner” in the 2015 Regulations denotes a person with whom the Union citizen has a connection which is personal in nature, and which is akin to, or broadly akin to, marriage.

With relation to the duration of the relationship and its relevance the Court found:

Thus, a durable partnership will tend to be one of some duration, but that is not to say that the duration of the relationship is, in itself, a defining feature. The length of a relationship will be an important, and sometimes compelling, index of the degree of commitment between the couple, but it is perfectly possible for a committed long-term, what is often called a “serious” relationship, to exist between persons who have known one and other for a short time.

With regards to whether cohabitation is required the Court found:

It would seem to me that cohabitation is in most cases a useful yardstick by which the durability of a relationship is assessed and by which it is possible to test whether persons are genuinely in a committed partnership

With regards to the argument that there is a lack of clarity as to what is required or what conditions need to be met with regards to the duration of a relationship and the period of cohabitation in order to be eligible to apply for a residence card as the partner of the EU citizen the Court disagreed and held: There is, in my view, no lack of clarity in the 2015 Regulations and in the other resources so that an applicant may readily understand the proofs to be met.

The Court found that the Minister did not impose an unlawful requirement of two years prior cohabitation, the Court accepted the Minister’s case that the two year cohabitation is not applied as a strict requirement and is used flexibly. The Court found that any imposition of a two year strict requirement could not be imposed without amending the legislation. The Court did not accept the argument that the two year cohabitation requirement was mandatory in nature.

It is beneficial to applications to now have confirmation that the Minister does not impose a mandatory two year cohabitation requirement and that the Minister should assess each case on its own particular facts.

Please contact the office if you wish to make an EU Fam Residence card application for yourself or your family member.

The full judgement will be published shortly.

Supreme Court to make a reference to the CJEU in Subhan and Ali test case

SOCIAL DEPENDENCY IN EU TREATY RIGHTS CASES

Applications for visas and residence cards for family members of EU citizens pursuant to EU Treaty Rights often require proof that the Applicant is dependent on their EU Citizen family member.

The concept of dependency is not defined in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC) or the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015. However, case law of the Court of Justice of the EU has established that an Applicant must show that they are not in a position to support themselves, having regard to their financial and social conditions.

Thus, while dependency is often assessed in terms of the existence of financial support between the Applicant and the EU Citizen, it can also arise from social, emotional and medical circumstances.

Several recent judgments of the High Court have shed some light on the importance of social dependency in EU Treaty Rights cases.

The case of Chittajallu v The Minister for Justice and Equality, Record Number 2019/28, in which Berkeley Solicitors were acting for the Applicant, involved a British citizen who submitted a visa application for her dependent mother.

In his judgment delivered on 11th July 2019, Mr Justice Barrett highlighted that the Minister had not properly considered the issue of social dependency arising from the Applicant’s medical circumstances in the initial decision.

Berkeley Solicitors also acted for the Applicant in the case of Agha v The Minister for Justice and Equality, Record Number 2019/374, the facts of which similarly involved a British citizen who applied for a visa for his elderly dependent mother who had serious health issues and was not capable of living independently.

In his judgment of 23rd December 2019, Mr Justice Barrett states at paragraph 6:

“There is a further separate error presenting in this regard, viz. that, in breach of European Union law, the Minister did not have any regard to the particular illness of Mr Agha’s mother and how this impacted on dependence…

As is clear from Jia, at para. 37 (as touched upon in Chittajallu v. Minister for Justice & Equality [2019] IEHC 521, at para. 4): “in order to determine whether the relatives in the ascending line…are dependent…the host Member State must assess, whether, having regard to their financial and social conditions, they are not in a position to support themselves” [Emphasis added]. No such analysis was not undertaken here…”

It is clear from the above High Court decisions that a failure to take into account an Applicant’s social dependency on the EU citizen constitutes a breach of EU law. An analysis of the Applicant’s financial dependency alone will not be sufficient.

In both of the above cases, the Court ruled that the initial refusal was unlawful and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration.

This is a positive development for family members who are dependent on their EU Citizen family member for reasons other than, or in addition to, their financial circumstances.

Social dependency may arise from factors such as an Applicant’s medical circumstances or the nature of the social and emotional relationship between the Applicant and the EU Citizen.

If you or a family member wish to discuss an EU Treaty Rights application, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

The full judgments will be published shortly on the website of the courts, which can be found here.

Supreme Court to make a reference to the CJEU in Subhan and Ali test case

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ON MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAME HOUSEHOLD IN EU TREATY RIGHTS CASES

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, in which Berkeley Solicitors acted for the Applicants.

The decision is significant for family members of EU citizens who have applications, or are considering making applications, for visas or residence cards based on the fact that they are members of the same household of an EU citizen family member under Directive 2004/38/EC on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States, (‘the Citizens Directive’).

The case concerned the refusal of an EU Fam residence card to the cousin of a British citizen, who had lived as the member of his household for many years in the United Kingdom prior to moving to Ireland.

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.

The Applicants argued that the household of the Union citizen consists of those persons who are family members and who reside in the same dwelling as the Union citizen. The Respondent argued that what is to be established is that the household concerned is that of the Union citizen, and that the centrality of the Union citizen in the family living arrangements is to be assessed.

The Applicants also put forward submissions regarding other language versions of the term ‘membership of the same household’ and found that there was no ‘head of the household’  test in those versions.

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.

The Court held:

“68. It may be more useful to consider the notion of household by reference to what it is not. Persons living under the same roof are not necessarily members of the same household and they may well be what we colloquially call housemates. An element of sharing that is necessary in a household may well be met in that the persons living together may agree on a distribution of household tasks and a proportionate contribution towards household expenses. But because, for the purpose of the Citizens Directive, one must focus on the living arrangements of the Union citizen, the members of the household of the Union citizen must, on the facts, be persons who are in some way central to his or her family life, that those family members are an integral part of the core family life of the Union citizen, and are envisaged to continue to be such for the foreseeable or reasonably foreseeable future. The defining characteristic is that the members of the group intend co-living arrangement to continue indefinitely, that the link has become the norm and is envisaged as ongoing and is part of the fabric of the personal life of each of them.

69. It is not a test of with whom the Union citizen would choose to live, but rather, with whom he or she expects to be permitted or facilitated to live in order that his or her family unit would continue in being, and the loss of whom in the family unit is a material factor that might impede the Union citizen choosing to or being able to exercise free movement rights. That second element, it seems to me, properly reflects the core principle intended to be protected by the Citizens Directive.

70. It may be dangerous to give an example, and I do so by way of illustration only. A family member who had resided in the same house as a Union citizen for many years before free movement rights were exercised might well have become a member of the family with whom there has developed a degree of emotional closeness such that the person is integral to the family life of the Union citizen. That person could be a member of a household because the living arrangements display connecting factors that might, in an individual case, be termed a “household”. If the rights of free movement of a Union citizen within the group are likely to be impaired by the fact of that living arrangement, whether for reasons of the moral duty owed to the other members of the group or otherwise, then the rights under the Citizens Directive fall for consideration.”

The Court found that the EU Citizen’s Free Movement rights where not impeded or restricted by refusing a right of residence to his family member in this case.

The full judgment has been published on the website of the courts and can be found here.

CHENCHOOLIAH V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE- IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT ON RIGHTS OF EU CITIZEN SPOUSES

The European Court of Justice delivered a very significant judgement in the case of Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice on the 10th September 2019, following a request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court in 2018.

This judgement has brought clarity regarding the correct procedure for the spouses of EU citizens, whose EU citizen spouse has left Ireland and therefore have lost their right to reside under Directive 2004/38/EC and the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 to have their right of residence considered by the Minister.

In the proceedings it was confirmed by the Court that Ms Chenchooliah ceased to be a beneficiary of the Directive and Regulations following the departure of her EU Citizen husband from Ireland.

The Court found that the question nevertheless remains as to whether Ms Chenchooliah’s position was governed by the Directive or only by the national law.

The Court found that Ms Chenchooliah ‘s circumstances are covered by the EU Directive, stating that the Directive not only contained the conditions for the granting of residence rights but it also makes provision for a set of rules to cover situations when a right of residence is lost.

The Court found that Article 15 of the Directive and the procedures provided for by Articles 30 and 31 apply to all decisions restricting free movement of Union citizens and their family members in cases where there are no public policy, public security or public health matters, as in this case.

The Court noted that this Article also provides that the State may not impose a ban on entry or expulsion in these circumstances.

The Court concluded that to find otherwise would deprive Article 15 of its substance and practical effect.

The Court concluded that in accordance with Article 15(3) of Directive 2004/38, the expulsion decision that may be made against Ms Chenchooliah cannot under any circumstances, impose a ban on entry into the territory.

The practical effect of this decision may be very far reaching. The Court has concluded that spouses of EU citizens who were at one time covered by the provisions of the EU Free Movement Directive cannot be issued with notices of intention to deport under national law (Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended)) as the consequence of a refusal of these applications results in a deportation order, which imposes an indefinite ban on entry to the State.

Furthermore, the Minister’s decisions in these cases must be made in light of the procedural safe guards laid down in the Directive and Regulations. The ability to make an expulsion order under the Directive are restricted to cases concerning public health, security and public policy.  Deportation orders are on the other hand made at the discretion of the Minister following a full consideration of the applicant’s circumstances.

It now follows that many persons have been issued notices of intention to deport unlawfully and are currently having their case considered under the incorrect procedure.

Many persons may in fact have been issued with a deportation order or even have been deported from the State unlawfully.

This case affects the spouses of EU citizens whose EU citizen spouse has left the state or has stopped exercising EU Treaty Rights in Ireland.

We would submit that many people who have received deportation orders or notice of intention to deport letters and were previously resident on the basis of EU Treaty Rights, may now have grounds to request the deportation orders to be revoked. Any persons who believe they are affected by this decision should now contact our office for further advices.

The full judgement can be read here.