Irish Immigration law Archives - Page 2 of 3

HIGH COURT DECISION RELATING TO REVOCATION OF AN EU RESIDENCE CARD AND THE IRISH PASSPORT OF MINOR CHILD

20th January 2023

HIGH COURT DECISION RELATING TO REVOCATION OF AN EU RESIDENCE CARD AND THE IRISH PASSPORT OF MINOR CHILD

Ms Justice Phelan of the High Court has delivered judgement in the case of AKS v the Minister for Justice [2023] IEHC 1, which addresses the impact of the Supreme Court judgement U.M ( a minor) v Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Ors [2022] IESC 25.

The facts in the AKS case arise from the decision of the Minister to revoke a permanent residence card to the parent of an Irish citizen child on the basis of an allegation of fraud. The decision of the Minister was to find that the EU Fam Residence card was revoked in its entirety on the basis of fraudulent conduct. It was submitted by the Applicants in this case that the 2015 Regulations do not permit retrospective revocation and furthermore that a revocation of an EU Fam residence card to the parent of an Irish citizen child, does not impact that child’s right to Irish citizenship. The Applicants also argued that the review process under the 2015 Regulations does not sufficiently meet the procedural safeguards and protections required by Directive 2004/38/EC.

In following the Supreme Court judgement UM, which arose in the context of revocation of refugee status of a parent rather than an EU Fam residence card, Ms Justice Phelan held that “Neither the 1956 Act nor any other law identified to me or by me provides for the denationalisation of a citizen by birth.”

Judge Phelan further confirmed that The 2015 Regulations make no provision for the acquisition or loss of citizenship and that the 2015 Regulations, properly construed, do not provide for a power to retrospectively nullify vested citizenship rights of a non-party child,

Judge Phelan held:

Neither Regulation 27 or 28 of the 2015 Regulations provide in express terms for a retrospective nullification of permissions which have issued on foot of false or misleading information or by reason of a marriage of convenience. Indeed the provisions of Regulations 27 and 28 are couched in the present tense both as regards a permission which “is being relied upon” and a marriage which “is” a marriage of convenience (as opposed to a post-divorce situation where reference would be made to the marriage in the past tense). It is also clear that the Regulations do not mandate the revocation of a permission that “is being relied” upon but they empower revocation by providing for a discretion (“may”) to revoke. This is in contrast with the language used in the 2006 Regulations where revocation was mandatory.

In contrasting the facts of UM and AKS, Ms Phelan concluded that in both contexts the relevant legislation did not envisage retrospective revocation where derived rights are impacted:

It seems to me that the starting point should be that the principle of prospective operation of legislation and legislative provisions should apply when interpreting the provisions of the 2015 Regulations and that it is appropriate to approach those Regulations on the basis that they are not to be presumed to permit retrospective alteration of the legal nature of past conduct and events affecting an acquired status unless clear words are used, mindful of course that the 2015 Regulations, as transposing Regulations, also require to be interpreted in a manner which gives effect to the Directive. It is clear from UM that the concept of retrospective nullification affecting acquired status while not outlawed in theory is considered by the Supreme Court to be generally unsuited to the public law context, and particularly unsuited to addressing historic immigration status and derived rights and requires a clear legal basis.

In relation to the Minister’s power to revoke the residence permission of the applicant, with the impact of the revocation only impacting his own position, and not the position of his minor child, the Court concluded:

Contrary to the First Respondent’s asserted understanding of her powers, it does not follow from a finding of fraud or marriage of convenience that a residence permission will be automatically revoked. While it is an open question as to whether the First Respondent had been vested with a power to retrospectively revoke the Second Applicant’s EU residence rights, it is nonetheless clear that any power was discretionary and therefore fell to be exercised in a proportionate manner having due regard to affected rights and interests.

If you have been impacted by these important issues, Please contact Berkeley Solicitors for advices.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCE EXCEPTIONAL AWARD OF STAMP 4 PERMISSION TO NON-EEA CREW MEMBERS UNDER THE ATYPICAL WORKING SCHEME

9th January 2023

On the 3^rd of January, 2023, the Department of Justice announced that all those currently holding valid Stamp 1 permission to work as a non-EEA crew member in the Irish Fishing Fleet on or after 1^st January 2023 will be granted Stamp 4 immigration permission.

This permission will be granted on an exceptional basis due to the closure of new applications for the Atypical Working Scheme (AWS) for such non-EEA crew. The AWS Scheme closed following an agreement to transfer responsibility for work permissions in this sector to the Employment Permit system. The granting of Stamp 4 permissions has been announced to provide certainty and security to employees and employers in this sector during this transitional period.

Stamp 4 immigration permission will be granted to any individual non-EEA crew member who currently holds a valid IRP card expiring on or after 1^st January 2023. Any individuals who hold a letter of permission under the AWS Scheme issued on or after the 3^rd of October 2022, will also be eligible for Stamp 4, as such letters are valid for 90 days from the date of issue.

Eligible individuals are advised to make an appointment as soon as possible at their local GNIB Office to be granted this permission. Those attending an appointment should bring their current, in-date passport, their most recent valid in-date letter of permission under the AWS Scheme, and their current IRP card (if applicable).

Any crew member whose AWS permission expired on or before the 31^st of December 2022, and who has not renewed their permission, will not be eligible for the granting of a Stamp 4 permission. We find this to be a very disappointing decision as many persons who have worked for many years under the AWS who may have fallen out of the system through no fault of their own are not included in this policy and will be required to continue to make their own individual cases to the Minister for Justice for Stamp 4 permission.

The full announcement from the Department of Justice can be found here:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/sea-fishers-atypical-working-scheme-update/

Information regarding the closure of the Atypical Working Scheme can be found here:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/closure-of-the-atypical-scheme-aws-for-non-eea-crew-in-the-irish-fishing-fleet/

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

ISD ANNOUNCE INITIATIVE TO FACILITATE NON-EEA NATIONALS WITH PENDING RENEWAL APPLICATIONS TO TRAVEL DURING CHRISTMAS

19th December 2022

Immigration Service Delivery has recently announced an initiative to facilitate non-EEA nationals travelling during the Christmas period. The Registration Office is currently experiencing delays of 5-6 weeks in processing renewals of IRP cards. ISD has stated that after such renewals are completed, it may take a further two weeks to receive a new IRP card in the post.

Due to these delays, the Minister is issuing a Travel Confirmation Notice, requesting carriers to allow individuals to travel on their recently expired IRP where a renewal application for their IRP was submitted before the expiry of their current permission. This initiative has been introduced to facilitate nationals who are required to renew their current permission and who wish to travel internationally during Christmas.

Non-EEA nationals may use their current recently expired IRP card to enable them to travel from 9^th December 2022 to 31^st January 2023, provided an application for renewal was submitted in advance of the expiry date of their IRP card.

Those wishing to avail of the initiative must download and print the notice published by ISD, and present it along with their expired IRP card and proof of their renewal application to immigration authorities and airlines if requested to do so.

The ISD notice can be found here:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/isd-announces-initiative-to-facilitate-customers-travelling-at-christmas/

Further information on this initiative can be found here:

https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/FAQs-Travel-Arrangement-Form-09-December-2022-to-31-January-2023.pdf

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

Clients of Berkeley Solicitors win their judicial review case before the High Court in N.I. V MJE 2022 / 442 /JR

SUPREME COURT DELIVER JUDGEMENT IN IMPORTANT CASE CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO REMAIN

7th December 2022

The Supreme Court have delivered a seminal judgement in the case of MK(Albania) v Minister for Justice v Minister for Justice and Equality [2022] IESC 0000.

The Supreme Court have issued five separate judgements in respect of this case.

The majority of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice ruled not to overturn the judgement of the High Court. The High court had determined in this case that a person “with a non-settled or precarious residential status cannot assert Article 8 rights, unless exceptional circumstances arise. Accordingly, a proportionality assessment does not arise”.

There are two dissenting judgements of Ms Justice Baker and Mr Justice Mac Menamin who ruled that they would have quashed the decision under challenge.

The case involved a young person from Albania who came to Ireland as a minor at the age of 16. An application for international protection in the State was submitted on his behalf. His applications for refugee status and subsidiary protection were refused. His application for leave to remain in the State was then considered and ultimately refused. The Applicant was thereafter issued with a deportation order requiring him to leave the State and remain outside the State indefinitely. The Applicant has lived in Ireland for six years, has went to school here, reached the age of majority here and lived in foster care in this State.

The decision to refuse him leave to remain in Ireland and to issue him with a deportation order found that given the precarious nature of his residence in Ireland, as a failed asylum seeker, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights was not engaged in his case.

The Supreme Court Justices all held that this was not in fact correct. The Court found that Article 8 ECHR was in fact engaged in the case, however the majority judgement held that in any event if the decision maker had correctly assessed the case in substance. The Court found that it would only be in the most exceptional of cases, with wholly exceptional circumstances, that an infringement of an applicant’s private life rights would outweigh a State’s legitimate aim of protecting the integrity of the immigration system.

Chief Justice O’Donnell in his Judgement outlined the key question at issue in this case:

how should the question of the impact upon the applicant’s private life of a decision of a refusal of leave to remain and/or removal from Ireland be approached and analysed under Article 8?

It is accepted in the Supreme Court judgements that the decision made by the Minister in this case followed the legal tests as outlined a case from the United Kingdom, R (Razgar) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UK HL 27, [2004] 2 AC 368 as adopted in this State by the Court of Appeal case of C.I. & Ors. v. The Minister for Justice, Equality & Law Reform [2015] IECA 192, [2015] 3 I.R. 385.

Mr Justice O’Donnell confirmed that this was not the correct approach in these cases. The approach in those cases would appear to be that exceptional circumstances need to arise before Article 8 is engaged. The Supreme Court found this to be incorrect, it should have been held that Article 8 is engaged (even if the applicant’s permission is “precarious”) and the decision maker should then have assessed whether the interference with the rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued. There is no question of the rights protected by Article 8 being breached in this case – the only thing in issue is the manner in which that conclusion should have been reached.

The Court did state that in cases of “settled migrants” whose permission in the State could not be deemed precarious, there may be more possibility that an applicant’s Article 8 rights might more readily outweighed by the legitimate interests of the State.

Mr Justice O’Donnell held:

The point has been reached where I think it should be recognised that it is in the nature of any decision which refuses leave to remain in the country and renders future residence unlawful and perhaps, even more clearly, where the decision is one for forced removal, that such a decision is normally likely to have an impact of such gravity on an individual who has been living lawfully in Ireland for any appreciable time to engage the operation of Article 8. This is so even if that residence is precarious on the basis of a permission that is necessarily temporary and limited and where the decision to refuse leave to remain, or indeed to deport, is no more than the enforcement and application of the limitation of that permission or its termination in accordance with its terms. To that extent, I agree that the applicant’s analysis is correct and, accepting for the moment the Razgar test as a template for the Minister’s decision in this case, the applicant’s case ought to have been assessed under the fifth limb of the test, that is, whether such interference was proportionate to the legitimate public ends sought to be achieved.

The Court held clarified that that while accepting the decision is invalid, I would refrain from ordering certiorari, on the grounds that the outcome would inevitably be the same. Instead for the reasons I have tried to set out, I do not consider that the decision of the Minister was invalid.

The Court held that there was no obligation on decision makers to assess applications in a particular format and what was important is that rights are “respected and not breached” and in compliance with The European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003.

In Mr Justice Hogan’s judgement the Court addresses the query as to whether the applicant could invoke Constitutional rights in these proceedings, namely Article 40.3 privacy and Article 40.6 associational rights:

It follows, therefore, that, based on the NHV analysis, non-nationals enjoy the protections afforded by Article 40.3 and Article 40.6.1.iii (and the other relevant constitutional provisions) in respect of these privacy and associational rights. To that extent, therefore, non-nationals enjoy (in principle, at any rate) a combination of privacy, associational and autonomy-style constitutional rights which correspond to the omnibus description of the right to a private life contained in Article 8 ECHR.

The other judgements outline this case was not the appropriate case to consider Constitutional rights as they interact with Article ECHR rights.

Ms Justice O’Malley agrees with the majority judgment in her judgement.

Mr Justice Mac Menamin in his dissenting judgment respectfully disagrees with the majority and finds that the question of methodology cannot be separated from the substance of the decision.

In concluding that he would quash the Minister’s decision Mr Justice Mac Menamin held the decision-making process in this case led to a test which commenced by asking whether Article 8 is engaged, which was answered by considering the gravity of the consequences, rather than whether the privacy and family right actually arose for consideration on the facts.

Mr Justice Mac Menamin concludes:

There is, at the heart of this appeal, a fundamental question of legal principle concerning rights and remedies. I respectfully, therefore, dissent from the judgment of the majority as to the absence of any remedy. In the first instance, I would have granted the appellant an order of certiorari of the Minister’s orders in this case. But, failing that, I would, alternatively, have granted a declaration that, by virtue of the respondent’s breach of his rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the ECHR, the appellant was entitled to a declaration that the respondent had breached her statutory duty under s.3(1() of the 2003 Act. In my view, such a conclusion must follow from the application of the soundest of all legal principles, that is the protection of the rule of law

In her dissenting judgement. Ms Justice Baker concurs with Mr Justice Mac Menamin and finds:

“Mac Menamin J. notes, that there are few cases where the interests of a precarious unsettled migrant with a personal family or private life could outweigh the significant interests of the State.”

Ms Justice Baker holds that the decision refusing the applicant leave to remain should have been quashed and re assessed by the Minister on the basis that:

“That the process be correct, and be seen to have been correctly applied, is not a mere formality…

…

…the essence of administrative law is to ensure that the process followed by an administrative decision maker were correct, not because due process is an end in itself, 4 but because a person who invokes a process is entitled to understand that process, to know that it was properly applied, and as a result to be in a position to know that the decision maker acted lawfully.”

This important Judgement will undoubtedly have an impact on how applications for leave to remain are to be considered by the Minister in Ireland from now on. It can no longer be the case that an applicant needs to show exceptional circumstances prior to being entitled to a proportionality assessment of any infringement of their private and family life rights under Article 8 ECHR.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT – REFUSAL OF TRAVEL VISA FOR EMPLOYMENT PERMIT HOLDER

21st November 2022

Ms Justice Bolger of the High Court has recently delivered a judgement in the case of S v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 578.

The case concerned an Indian citizen who was granted a work permit to take up a position as a tandoori chef. The Applicant then applied for a visa to enable him enter Ireland to take up this employment position, but his visa application was refused. The Applicant appealed against this refusal; his appeal was also unsuccessful.

The Applicant initiated Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court to challenge the Minister’s decision, seeking an order of certiorari to quash the decision. Ms Justice Bolger found for the applicant and granted the order quashing the decision.

The Minister refused the visa application on the basis that there was insufficient documentation submitted in support of the application. The Minister stated that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the information supplied. Lastly, the Minister stated that the visa sought was for a specific purpose and duration, and the applicant had not satisfied the visa officer that such conditions would be observed. The Minister highlighted that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that they had the appropriate skills, knowledge, or experience for taking up the employment position in Ireland.

The appeal was also refused on the basis that the applicant had not addressed the refusal reasons listed in the refusal letter. The Minister relied on evidence from a telephone interview with the applicant in which he was asked what type of food he would be cooking, to which he replied, “Indian breads.” The applicant was then asked about cooking other dishes such as chicken tikka and he confirmed that this was not part of his job as a tandoori chef but that he had a basic knowledge of this type of cooking.

The Court found that the appeals decision did not state what documentation was missing from the applicant’s application, nor was missing documentation identified during the application or appeal process. The Minister’s deponent swore an affidavit in the proceedings which took issue with the applicant’s failure to submit a supplementary form that was required by the Minister. It was further highlighted that payslips, tax forms and evidence of experience or qualifications were missing, however this was raised for the first time after judicial review proceedings were initiated.

The Court found that it was unreasonable for the decision maker to dismiss the applicant’s two work references because of an absence of a website. The decision maker had claimed the lack of a website meant they were unable to check the references, when one written reference may have included a website and both references included mobile numbers which were not checked by the Minister.

Regarding the alleged inconsistencies in the application, the Court found that it was unclear from the appeal decision what these inconsistencies were. The decision maker had concluded based off the interview that the applicant could not provide detailed recipes for food which he would be required to cook in Ireland. The Court found that this was not a reasonable conclusion for the decision maker to reach, as the applicant’s work permit made it clear that his job was to make specialty tandoori bread, which the employer was satisfied the applicant had sufficient experience in. The applicant never claimed he would be required to cook chicken tikka or chicken dishes in Ireland and there was therefore no need to question him about his experience in this regard.

The Court found that a work permit does not constitute prima facie evidence that the applicant has the skills and experience required, to the point that the Minister for Justice cannot look behind the grant of the permit or require an applicant for a visa to show they are qualified to do the job for which they were granted the permit, in the assessment of the visa application to enter Ireland. However, the Court found that it also cannot simply be ignored.

The Court further found that there were no reasons or explanations given for the Minister’s decision that the applicant had not satisfied the visa officer that the conditions of the visa would be observed. The Court found that the reasons set out in the appeal decision were very brief. Ms Justice Bolger highlighted that the reasons set out in the decision fell well short of what is required.

This case raises the interesting conflict that can arise when a person has been granted an employment permit and requires an employment visa to enter the State.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment have responsibility for the issuance of employment permits. When a person has been granted an employment permit is a national of a country that requires an entry visa to enter Ireland, their application to enter Ireland for the purpose of employment is again subjected to a review by the Minister for Justice in their visa application.

It is the Minister for Justice who has responsibility for the issuance of visas and immigration permissions. In our experience the Minister for Justice does not limit her assessment of the visa application to immigration matters only and will often undertake an examination of the applicant’s suitability for the employment position they have been issued an employment permit for.

It is a very unfortunate and regrettable position for a person who has been successful in obtaining an employment permit to come and work in Ireland to then be refused entry to the State to take up that employment due to concerns raised by visa officers as to the applicant’s suitability for an employment position.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.

STAMP 0 PERMISSION ACCEPTED AS RECKONABLE RESIDENCE FOR NATURALISATION

BERKELEY SOLICITORS VOTED ONE OF IRELAND’S BEST LAW FIRMS 2023

3rd October 2022

The Irish Independent published the list of Ireland’s Best Law Firms 2023 on the 2^nd October 2022. The list was compiled following a peer-to-peer survey of more than 1,000 legal professionals.

Berkeley Solicitors are delighted to have been voted one the best law firms in Ireland for 2023. This is the second year in a row Berkeley Solicitors have been included in the list, in the category of Human Rights and Immigration.

Berkeley Solicitors would like to express our gratitude for our clients’ and colleagues’ continued support. We look forward to working with you and continuing our relationships into 2023.

The full list of Ireland’s Best Law Firms 2023 can be found here.

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDS DECISION TO REFUSE IRISH PASSPORT TO CHILD OF SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION HOLDER

MINISTER HELEN MCENTEE ANSWERS PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION REGARDING PROCESSING TIMES FOR NATURALISATION APPLICATIONS IN THE STATE

29th September 2022

Minister Helen McEntee recently answered a parliamentary question in relation to the processing times for naturalization applications in the State.

Deputy Bernard J Durkan asked the Minister to confirm the number of naturalization applications that had been received by the Department of Justice during the period of 1^st January 2022 to 31^st March 2022, how many of those had been granted, and the expected processing time for those that had yet to be determined.

The Minister acknowledged the importance that naturalization applications hold for applicants, and highlighted that the Department of Justice continued to accept applications throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

Minister McEntee confirmed that 3,706 naturalization applications were received by the Department of Justice between 1^st January 2022 and the 31^st March 2022, three of which have been approved. She continued to clarify that a further 24 applications from this cohort are “in the final stage of processing”.

Interestingly, Minister McEntee confirmed that the average processing time for naturalization applications is currently 19 months and highlighted that this had been reduced from a previously stated processing time of 23 months. While the reduction of the processing time is a welcome update, it remains far above the pre-pandemic average processing time of 12 months.

Minister McEntee portrayed an awareness of the need for a further reduction in the length of time people are currently being made to wait to have their citizenship applications determined. She highlighted that the Department of Justice is introducing new measures to try and speed up the process, including the assignment of new staff and a number of digitization measures. It remains to be seen if these measures will indeed aide the continued reduction of processing times of naturalization applications in the State.

If you or your family require advice on your eligibility for naturalisation or in respect of your ongoing naturalisation application, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

The full parliamentary question and answer can be read here.

IRELAND SUSPENDS OPERATION OF EUROPEAN AGREEMENT ON THE ABOLITION OF VISAS FOR REFUGEES FOR 12 MONTHS

19th July 2022

A Convention Travel Document refers to a travel document issued in accordance with Article 28 of the Geneva Convention and is a document issued to refugees.

Ireland is a signatory to the European Agreement on the Abolition of Visas for Refugees and as part of this arrangement the holder of a Convention Travel Document issued by another contracting State is not subject to Irish visa requirements for short stays of up to 90 days and can request entry to Ireland for up to 90 days as a non-visa required person.

If a person with a Convention Travel Document from a relevant country wishes to live or reside in Ireland on a long-term basis, they are required to apply for a visa in advance of travel to the State, the visa waiver applies only to short stays of up to 90 days.

This applies to holders of a Convention Travel Document issued by Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, or Switzerland.

As of Tuesday 19th July 2022, Ireland has decided to avail of the option to temporarily suspend the operation of this Agreement in Ireland for a period of 12 months.

Article 7 of the Agreement allows for signatories to the Agreement to temporarily suspend its operation for several reasons, including public order, security, or public health.

The Government announced yesterday that Ireland’s temporary suspension of the Agreement will be notified to the Council of Europe.

The Government will also be required to make an order to amend the Immigration Act 2004 (Visas) Order 2014 to put the requirement for entry visas for holders of refugee convention documents from the relevant countries on a statutory footing.

The Minister for Justice has stated that the reason for the move to suspend the operation of the Agreement in Ireland is due to the number of applications for international protection in Ireland by those who have been granted refugee status in another State.

The Minister’s notice states that from January 2021 to January 2022 the Minister was notified that 760 applicants for international protection had been granted international protection in another State, with 479 being granted protection in the Member States whose beneficiaries of international protection are visa exempt.

We would submit that 479 is a small number when the applications for international/ temporary protection are considered.

Between January 2019 to January 2022 the Minister has indicated she received 6,494 applications for international protection. As of 10th July 2022, 43,256 PPS numbers have been issued to Ukrainian nationals, indicating over 40,000 Ukrainian nationals have been granted temporary protection in Ireland.

Furthermore, persons who have been granted refugee status in another country may still have a valid claim to make for protection in Ireland. We recall the case of MAH v The Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 302, judgement delivered on 30th April 2021 by Ms Justice Tara Burns. The Applicant was a Somali national who had studied medicine in Ukraine. Upon completion of her studies, she returned to Somalia where she worked as a junior doctor. During this time, the Applicant was subjected to threats from a fundamentalist group and so she fled to Ukraine by renewing her student visa. Upon the expiry of her student visa, she applied for asylum in Hungary and was granted refugee status. However, the applicant was homeless in Hungary, and was unable to obtain work. She was physically assaulted by a man and feared being sexually assaulted by others. She also experienced significant racist abuse. The Minister for Justice in Ireland issued a deportation order against the Applicant.

Ms Justice Burns assessed the Respondent’s consideration under Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 as amended, and stated her findings as follows:

I am of the view that the Respondent incorrectly assessed the COI; failed to consider whether the presumption that her fundamental rights would be upheld in Hungary had been rebutted; and failed to properly consider the Applicant’s employment prospects pursuant to s. 3(6)(f) of the 1999 Act, the Respondent’s determination in respect of the Deportation Order is vitiated by these errors.

In granting the Applicant the reliefs sought, Ms Justice Burns summarised that:

‘the founding architects of the system of international protection which is in place in Europe today, would be of the view that we, as a people, have badly failed the Applicant in this case.’

A link to our blog on this judgement can be found here.

We would argue that it is unfair and unhelpful that the justification put forward by the Minister for Justice in suspending the operation of this agreement in Ireland is abuse of the system.

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE ANNOUNCES ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE RENEWAL AND REGISTRATION OF IMMIGRATION PERMISSIONS

31st May 2022

On the 27^th May 2022, the Minister of Justice announced new arrangements for the renewal and registration of immigration permissions. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the Minister for Justice automatically extended immigration permissions of those who held a valid permission to reside in the State that expired in or after March 2020. The Minister of Justice made announcements on nine different occasions, each time stating that permissions would be automatically renewed to a certain date. The most recent extension announced by the Minister extended immigrations permissions to the 31^st May 2022.

For the first time since March 2020, the Minister for Justice has announced that immigration permissions that expired between March 2020 and May 2022 will no longer be automatically renewed. The Minister announced that the exemption from renewing is to end from the 31^st May 2022.

The extension of immigration permissions was a response by the Department of Justice to the ever-changing and uncertain health and travel restrictions that were in place during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In making the announcement, the Minister for Justice commented;

Now that those circumstances are returning to normal, it is important that we also return to a more normal way of doing business. This includes in relation to first-time registrations and renewals, and processes and procedures have been in place to allow customers to do so for some time now.

You can apply to renew your immigration permission online at https://inisonline.jahs.ie/. Those applying with a new passport can now also upload the bio-page of their passport online.

Previously, it was a requirement that you had to wait until four weeks before your permission was due to expire to be able to renew. This has been amended, and you can now renew your permission up to 12 weeks in advance of your permission expiring.

Those based in Dublin can register their immigration permission for the first time by calling Freephone number 1800 741 741. Those located outside of Dublin are required to make an appointment to register their immigration permission through the Garda Station network.

The Minister of Justice announced important clarifications for employees whose immigration permission has expired and who are unable to obtain a valid IRP card before the 31^st May 2022. The Minister has confirmed non-EEA nationals can legally continue work while their application for renewal is processing once they can provide their employer with documentary evidence of same.

In the announcement, the Minister also confirmed that students who intend to enroll in third level education, can apply for a short-term letter of permission based on proof of application or enrolment once they have completed three eight-month English language courses.

The notice can be read in full here.

If you or a family member have queries about your immigration permission, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OPINION FINDS IRELAND CANNOT REFUSE DISABILITY ALLOWANCE TO DEPENDENT RELATIVE OF EU WORKER

THE TEMPORARY PROTECTION DIRECTIVE

8th March 2022

Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20^th July 2001, the ‘Temporary Protection Directive’, was established by the European Union as a response to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo in the 1990s, that highlighted the need for a tool to assist with max influxes of displaced persons into EU member states.

On the 4^th March 2022, the Council adopted unanimously the implementing decision to activate the Temporary Protection Directive for the first time since its establishment, for persons fleeing the conflict in Ukraine.

The Council Implementing Decision that activated the Directive highlights;

“The Union has shown and will continue to show its resolute support to Ukraine and its citizens, faced with an unprecedented act of aggression by the Russian Federation.”

The Directive is grounded in solidarity and promotes a balance of efforts between EU Member States. It is a legislative tool that enables Member States to offer persons legally resident in Ukraine who are fleeing the war, temporary protection upon arrival in an EU member state. Temporary protection will be initially provided for 12 months. Unless terminated, this period will be extended automatically by six monthly periods for a maximum of one year.

The Council Implementing Decision notes that those who are eligible for temporary protection under the Directive will “enjoy harmonised rights across the Union.” Persons holding temporary protection in Ireland will enjoy the rights afforded under Section 60 of the International Protection Act 2015;

(a) to seek and enter employment, to engage in any business, trade, or profession and to have access to education and training in the State in the like manner and to the like extent in all respects as an Irish citizen,

(b) to receive, upon and subject to the same conditions applicable to Irish citizens, the same medical care, and the same social welfare benefits as those to which Irish citizens are entitled, and

(c) to the same rights of travel in the State as those to which Irish citizens are entitled.

The below paragraphs outline who will be covered by the Directive;

Ukrainian nationals residing in Ukraine who are displaced as of 24 February 2022 following the military invasion by Russian armed forces on that date;

Third-country nationals or stateless persons legally residing in Ukraine who are displaced as of 24 February 2022 following the military invasion by Russian armed forces on that date and who are unable to return to their country or region of origin in safe and durable conditions because of the situation prevailing in that country. This could include persons enjoying refugee status or equivalent protection, or who were asylum seekers in Ukraine at the time of the events leading to the mass influx. Third-country nationals who were legally residing in Ukraine on a long-term basis at the time of the events leading to the mass influx should enjoy temporary protection regardless of whether they could return to their country or region of origin in safe and durable conditions; and

Family members of the above two categories of people, in so far as the family already existed in Ukraine at the time of the circumstances surrounding the mass influx, regardless of whether the family member could return to his or her country of origin in safe and durable conditions. In line with Council Directive 2001/55, a family member is considered as the spouse of the above two categories of people or his or her unmarried partner in a stable relationship, where the legislation or practice of the Member State concerned treats unmarried couple in a way comparable to married couples under its law relating to aliens; the minor unmarried children of the of the above two categories of people or of his or her spouse, without distinction as to whether they were born in or out wedlock or adopted; other close relatives who lived together as part of the family unit at the time of the circumstances surrounding the mass influx, and who were wholly or mainly dependent of the above two categories of people.

Berkeley Solicitors wishes to express our deepest concerns for the people of Ukraine.

If you or your family require advice on your eligibility for temporary protection or in respect of visa applications for family members in third countries, please do not hesitate to contact our office.

The Temporary Protection Directive can be found here.

The Council Implementing Decision that activated the Temporary Protection Directive can be found here.

Tag Archive for: Irish Immigration law