CASE STUDY - ‘EXTENDED FAMILY MEMBER’ DIRECTIVE 2004/38EC (UK)

CASE: Dauhoo v. Secretary of State for the Home Department-UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rejects Claims of Applicant that he is an “Extended Family Member”

In this case, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) clarified what an Applicant must show to qualify as an extended family member of an EEA national for the purpose of being granted a residency card under Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citzens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member State.  The Tribunal, interpreting the UK regulation transposing the Directive, found that an Applicant must show either his dependency on an EEA national relative or membership of the EEA national’s household prior to the Applicant’s arrival in the UK (“prior “ test) AND after his arrival in the UK (“present” test).  The Tribunal rejected the notion that an Applicant was required to show prior and present connection in the same capacity.  It construed the regulation purposively, finding that the requirements of dependency and household membership are alternatives rather than conjunctive because to do otherwise “would be contrary to the stated underlying purposes of facilitating the residence of such persons.”  

The Appellant, a citizen of Mauritius, arrived in the UK on six month visit visa to his sister, an EEA national, in 2004.  He came with his spouse, also an EEA national.  He received grants of permission for leave to remain as a student until 2011.  His marriage broke down in 2009.  He claimed to have been dependent on his sister since his arrival.  He applied for a residence card in 2011 on the basis that he was an extended family member of his sister, which was denied by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the basis that “there was no evidence to show that you were with or dependent on your sister in another country immediately prior to your arrival in the UK in 2004, nor have you supplied any evidence that since you arrived in the UK you have been resident with or financially dependent on her.”  The Appellant appealed, offering further evidence that since the breakdown of his marriage, he had been in a durable relationship with another EEA national since mid 2009.  The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) judge had upheld the earlier decision, finding credibility issues with respect to the Appellant’s claims and rejecting the Appellant’s claim that he had been dependent on his sister when he lived in Mauritius or when he arrived in the UK.  

However, in the Appellant’s case, the Tribunal found that “whilst [appellant] turns out to have established that he met the ‘present’ requirement … by virtue of being a member of the EEA principle’s household in the UK [the FIT judge’s findings had not expressly made a finding on that issue]” he was “still shut out” because he had failed to meet the “prior” test.  The Appellant, who acknowledged that he could not show prior household membership, had argued to the Tribunal that the FIT judge erred in assessing appellant and his witnesses’ evidence as well as the documentary evidence, in support of his claim of prior dependence on his sister when he was in Mauritius.  The Tribunal found that the FIT judge’s assessment that the Appellant and his witnesses’ evidence lacked credibility was for “sound reasons” and that the FIT judge had acted within his scope in determining that the documentary evidence offered in support of this claim “lacked substance” and was “quite insufficient to demonstrate the appellant’s claimed dependency.”

The Tribunal also found that the FIT judge had not erred in rejecting the Appellant’s argument that he had an EEA claim based on a durable relationship with his EEA partner based on credibility grounds as well as his claim under Article 8 of the European Charter on Human Rights.  With respect to the Appellant’s former claim, the Tribunal agreed that the FIT judge had good reason to find appellant’s claim of having been in a relationship with an EEA national from mid 2009 to May 2011 not credible, as he never mentioned the relationship when he submitted his application for a residence card in January 2011 or when he lodged his grounds of appeal in May 2011, and that “on the judge’s findings the relationship had only been shown to exist, if at all, very recently and on the appellant’s own evidence his partner was economically self sufficient.” 

The Tribunal concluded that, “on the basis of the evidence before the FIT judge a durable relationship had not been established.”    As regards the latter claim that the Appellant’s Art. 8 right to family life had been infringed, the Tribunal concluded that “the judge’s findings of fact (which [he] found to be unaffected by legal error) more than justified him in concluding there was no violation and that he had not sufficiently established family life where he and his sister were both adults and the Appellant was in good health. 

BROPHY SOLICITORS

23.03.12

ROMANIAN AND BULGARIAN NATIONALS – RIGHT TO RESIDE AND ACCESS TO SOCIAL BENEFITS

Romanian Bulgarian nationals who are the parents of Irish citizen children now have access to the Labour Market within Ireland on the same basis as other EU nationals. See “Employment Permit Information for Romanian Naiontals” on the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation website;

Many of the persons affected by the Minister’s change in policy are in situations where they have been refused access to social benefits, including Jobs Seekers Allowance, Child Benefit payments and Supplementary Welfare Allowance.  Having been refused these payments, they are now without any means of income whatsoever. They have been refused access to social benefits usually on the basis of the Habitual Residence Condition, or for the reason that they are not eligible to take up employment in the State. Many have doubted the legitimacy of refusals on the basis of the Habitual Residence Condition, given that the persons have often resided in the State since 2007, have children in school, and have clearly made Ireland their “centre of interest”.

Until now, these Romanian and Bulgarian nationals’ status in the State has been somewhat unclear. They were not legally resident within the ambit of Directive 2004/38, nor did the State recognize an alternative right to reside under the Treaty provisions. However, there was no legal means under EU law which permitted the State to lawfully require their removal from the State. Many such persons have fallen into destitution, surviving with the assistance of charities and voluntary organizations.

The Minster’s change in policy this week to permit Romanian and Bulgarian nationals who are the parents of Irish citizen children access the Labour Market now changes their status in the State, and also their entitlements to access social benefits. Such persons are now eligible to take up employment, and can commence a legitimate search for employment. Those Romanian and Bulgarian nationals who are already in employment, will be immediately regarded as workers within the meaning of EU law and Directive 2004/38. Their right to reside will be also immediately legitimised. They will acquire the benefits of worker status under EU law, for example, they will have access to the State welfare system, including child benefit payments.  Should they become involuntarily unemployed and register as a job seeker, they will retain their worker status (and thus their right to reside) either indefinitely if they had worked for over one year, or for at least a period of six months if they had worked for under one year.

For those Romanians and Bulgarian nationals, who are the parents of Irish citizen children, and who are not currently in employment, they can now commence a legitimate search for employment, and therefore must be regarded as economically active as Job Seekers under EU Law. Pursuant to Regulation 1612/68, all EU citizens have the right to move within the territory of the EU to seek employment for at least a six month period. As legitimate Job Seekers, they have a lawful right to reside. They can therefore apply to all benefits including Child Benefit and Jobseekers Allowance and Supplementary Welfare Allowance. If they becomes employed (either part time or full time), self employed, a student or financially self sufficient (with health insurance), they then trigger their “worker status”,  and the benefits as described above.

The question now to be determined is when did the Romanian/Bulgarian parents of Irish citizen children commence lawful status in the State? Was it on the 28^th February 2012, when the government implemented this change in policy? Or was it previous to this, when the Zambrano judgment was delivered? When the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU was implemented? The answer to these questions could have a signigicant conssequences for those who may have been wrongly refused accesss to social benefits. Most likely, these are questions to be determined by the Court of Justice.

ROMANIAN AND BULGARIAN PARENTS OF IRISH CITIZEN CHILDREN TO HAVE UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE LABOUR MARKET

We have been informed that a Government decision was reached on the 28^th February last to permit Romanian and Bulgarian parents of Irish citizen children unrestricted access to the Labour Market with immediate effect. We understand that notice of this change will be posted on the Department of Job, Enterprise and Innovation this week.

It seems that this change in the law will be automatic, and immediate; Therefore Romanians and Bulgarian who arrived in the State from 2007 onwards and who are the parents of Irish citizen children will not be required to apply for work permits in order to be legally employed in the State. For those already in employment, they will be automatically regarded as legally employed.

The decision comes following a number of cases, which have recently been issued in the High Court to challenge the State’s policy to exclude Romanian and Bulgarian parents of Irish citizen children from the ambit of the Zambrano judgement. In one such case taken by this office, we claimed on behalf of our client that the State had acted unlawfully in failing to give preference to him, as a citizen of the European Union, over third country nationals in respect of access to the labour market in the State. Furthermore, it was argued that the State had acted unlawfully by discriminating against the applicants as families consisting of Irish citizen children with a Romanian/Bulgarian parents by treating them less favourably in respect of the parent’s access to the labour market when compared with families consisting of an Irish citizen children with a third country national parent.

We very much welcome the State’s change in position to accept that all Romanian/Bulgarian nationals, who are parents of Irish citizen children, must have full access to the Labour Market.

Brophy Solicitors

Irish Times Article - Judge tells ill South African couple they can remain in State

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0225/1224312374191.html

AN ELDERLY and ill South African couple whose Irish citizen daughter and her husband had offered to allow them live with them have won a High Court order overturning the minister for justice’s refusal to allow them to live in the State.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Cooke overturned the minister’s July 2010 refusal to grant permission to Leon (72) and Margaret (68) Lemiere to live here.

He ruled the minister’s decision did not properly take account of the constitutional family rights of the couple’s daughter, Desiree O’Leary, and her husband, and was not based on a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts of the case. The O’Learys and the Lemieres had brought the judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal to allow them remain in the State on grounds including that the decision breached their family rights.

Ms O’Leary, a UCD lecturer, and her engineer husband, Diarmuid, wanted the elderly couple to stay with them after both became ill and housebound following their discharge from hospital in South Africa in 2008.

The Lemieres lived in Durban where security was a constant and daily problem as, despite having elaborate security precautions, their home was a frequent target for burglars, the court heard.

They previously obtained temporary permissions to stay, with their last permission running up to July 31st, 2010, on condition they did not have recourse to public funds or State benefits and services.

In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Cooke said he was satisfied the minister had given inadequate consideration to the need for balance between protecting the applicants’ family interests under article 41 of the Constitution and the State’s interest in maintaining the integrity of immigration laws.

The crucial point was not the Lemiere couple’s right to enter and remain in the State, but the O’Leary couple’s constitutional rights as Irish citizens to look after family members within the State.

The O’Leary couple, as adult Irish citizens, and their dependent elderly parents, constituted a family within the meaning of article 41 of the Constitution and, as such, invoked the protections envisaged by that article, he held.

Those protections included the entitlement of the family to run its own internal life and affairs without interference from the State, unless such interference was justified. The judge added he found the O’Learys were open and candid in their effort to find a way to have the parents stay in Ireland.

He rejected arguments by the minister the challenge should be dismissed on grounds there was no express provision in Irish legislation for an Irish national to apply on behalf of a non-EU national who was their dependant to join them in the State. He further dismissed claims of a lack of good faith by the applicants in their dealings with the department.

The minister acted incorrectly in assessing dependency only in respect of financial grounds when dependency was argued in a much broader context, the judge ruled.#

Irish Times

25.02.12

New body of case law prohibiting Dublin 2 returns to certain Member States

Since the Court of Justice judgements in the “Greek Transfer” cases (see NS and Others v SSHD (C-411/10) and in MSS v Belgium and Greece) in 2011, Members States are now effectively prohibited from applying the Dublin 2 Regulations in order to return asylum seekers to Greece. Following on from these judgements, it is not surprising that a body of case law is now developing to challenge Dublin 2 returns to other Member States with poor records in respect of the treatment of asylum applicants.

In December 2011, we blogged about the Austrian Courts prohibiting Dublin 2 returns to Hungary due to the potential risks of a breach of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Relying on these judgements we have been able to secure an undertaking from the Department of Justice not to deport a client of this office to Hungary.

We now wish to highlight some further decisions coming from the Belgian courts which suspend Dublin 2 returns to Malta for similar reasons. The Belgian Court’s decision, of the 6^th  January 2012, found that the applicant, of Somali nationality, had demonstrated an arguable claim based on Article 3 of the ECHR that he would be subject to inhuman treatment were he to be returned to Malta and thus suspended the execution of the State Secretary’s decision.  The judgement is written in Dutch and summarized briefly in English by the UNHCR. 

Summary of Belgian court’s judgement;

The applicant had previously applied for asylum in the Netherlands, but had been returned by that country to Malta in 2010 pursuant to the Dublin Regulation.  He alleged that in Malta, he was left homeless and that, due to his failure to be provided with legal aid, his asylum request had not been properly considered.  The applicant then requested asylum in Belgium on 27 October 2011, which the State Secretary for Asylum and Migration, Social Integration and Poverty Reduction refused to examine and then ordered his renewed transfer to Malta on 21 December 2011. The applicant, who was detained and scheduled to be transferred on 9 January 2012, requested suspension of the execution of the State Secretary’s decision under extremely urgent procedure on 5 January 2012. 

Citing the report of Mr Thomas Hammarburg  - Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe – dated 9^th June 2011, the Belgian Court found that there were significant deficiencies with Malta’s detention policy regarding asylum-seekers and the living conditions in the detention centres, as well as clear shortcomings with respect to Malta’s asylum proceedings concerning legal aid and the asylum proceedings, partly caused by the detention policy. The Court found that the Belgian authorities should have been aware of these shortcomings and taken them into consideration in their decision to refuse to consider the applicant’s asylum request and transfer him back to Malta and which they failed to disprove in written pleadings.

Mr Thomas Hammarburg’s report identifies many concerns regarding Malta’s policies in respect of asylum seekers. 

Brophy Solictors

24.02.12 

Council of Europe report on situation in Malta for asylum seekers, June 2011

The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe – Mr Thomas Hammarburg  - has recently published a report detailing the Council’s concerns regarding the situation of asylum seekers in Malta. The  report, dated 9^th June 2011, identifies the following concerns regarding Malta’s detention policy:

-         It provides for mandatory administrative detention for all arriving migrants, including asylum seekers.  The Commissioner recommended that Malta should provide for “the presumption in favour of liberty under national law, and establish a framework for the implementation of alternatives to detention.”

-         Malta has failed to comply with ECHR July 2010 judgment in Louled Massoud, which found a violation of Art 5 in relation to detention of an asylum seeker, whose claim had been rejected for almost 18 months.  The Commissioner recommended that “speedy and effective remedies” should be available to migrants to challenge their detention.

The report identified the following concerns regarding the living conditions in the detention and open centres:

-         The Commissioner noted that living conditions in open centres, where migrants released from detention are housed, vary substantially, with adequate arrangements in smaller centres that cater for some vulnerable groups (families with children, pregnant women, unaccompanied minors) and “far more difficult” conditions in the bigger centres.  The Commissioner found one such tent village in a larger centre “clearly inadequate” even for short periods of time and recommended it be closed.  He also noted that conditions had reportedly deteriorated at another complex housing vulnerable groups since the Commissioner’s visit following new arrivals from Libya. 

-         Re: vulnerable groups— the Commissioner noted that Malta’s policy of mandatory detention of members of vulnerable groups was “at variance with international standards,” which provide that such measures should only be used as a measure of last resort, and that he was concerned about the lengthy period of time unaccompanied minors and people with disabilities or serious physical or mental problems spend as a result of the lengthy procedures for establishing their vulnerability.  The Commissioner also noted that these smaller facilities that house vulnerable groups often become full so that members of these groups, including those returned from other EU countries under the Dublin Regulations often end up in the bigger centres that “are totally inadequate for this purpose.”

The report also expressed concern, with respect to legal aid and asylum proceedings, that despite some progress in this area, Malta needs to provide legal aid and improve access to case files for asylum seekers and their representatives and the motivation behind asylum decisions.

The Commissioner, who had found that the system in place to support migrants “currently perpetuates their social exclusion and leaves them at serious risk of destitution,” recommended that Malta make available financial support and social assistance to all beneficiaries of international protection in Malta, rather than limiting financial assistance to those living in the detention centres.   With respect to the Commissioner’s concern about reportedly prevalent racism and xenophobia against migrants in Malta, he recommended that the government do more in terms of developing a “robust public information strategy to favour [migrants’] local integration.”

Brophy Solicitors 

24.02.12 

High Court finds in favour of Irish citizen married couple fighting for a right of residence in the State for their dependant parents

We are delighted (and relieved!) to announce the successful outcome in the case of O’Leary and Lemiere v The Minister for Justice. You may recall our previous blog posting on this case. 

This morning, Mr Justice Cooke delivered judgement approving our clients’ application to set aside the Minster for Justice’s decision to refuse to grant permission to reside for their dependant elderly parents.  He confirmed the Minister’s decision to refuse their application for permission to reside as a disproportionate decision not based on a fair and reasonable assessment on the facts of the case.

Mr Justice Cooke dismissed the State’s argument that the applicants’ case did not trigger the protections of Article 41 of the Constitution. The High Court confirmed that the applicants, as adult Irish citizens and their dependant elderly parents, did constitute a family within the meaning of Article 41 Constitution, and as such invoked the protections envisaged by that Article. He confirmed Mr Justice Hogan’s previous findings that these protections include the entitlement of the family to order its own internal life and affairs without interference from the State, unless such interference is objectively justified in the interests of the individual family members or necessary in the over riding public interest. 

For the purposes of assessing the rights deriving from Article 41, Mr Justice Cooke confirmed that what is important is the context of the family relationship, as opposed to how that relationship is defined. In other words, the reality of the family situation is to be assessed.

Having accepted the O’Learys and the Lemieres constituted a family within the meaning of Article 41 of the Constitution, Mr Justice Cooke proceeded to the “central issue ” of the case - whether the reasons given by the Minister to refuse the applicants permission to reside constituted a lawful exercise of the Minister’s discretion pursuant to Section 4 (7) of the Immigration Act 2004, or whether the decision was illegal in that it was unreasonable and disproportionate or inadequately explained.

On a thorough review of the submissions made in support of the application, and the Minister’s responses, Mr Justice Cooke concluded as follows;

“It is difficult to avoid the impression given by the cumulative effect of the reasons as stated, that the decision made was more concerned with finding and articulating grounds which would support a refusal rather that seeking to give an overall assessment of the merits of the application in a balances and objective manner.”

Mr Justice Cooke assessed individually the two principle grounds for refusal of the application – (1) that there is no express provision in Irish legislation for an Irish national to apply on behalf of a non EU national who is their dependant to join them in the State, and (2) that there was a lack of good faith by the applicants in their dealings with the Department.  In dismissing both grounds for refusal, Mr Justice Cooke confirmed that it is manifestly the case that the Minister has the power in his discretion to extend any permission to be in the State granted to a non national pursuant to Section 4 of the Immigration Act 2004. He also confirmed that it was the Court’s judgment that it was highly questionable that the motives attributed to the applicants in the decision were consistent with the relevant material, describing the O’Learys as open and candid in their efforts to find a way of having the grandparents to remain in Ireland.

For these reasons, Mr Justice Cooke found that the Minister’s decision must be quashed, as it was based on justifications erroneous in law.

Mr Justice Cooke then added some further comments of note in respect of the cental issue of dependency: he found that the Minister was incorrect to assess dependency only in respect of financial grounds, when dependency had been argued on a much broader context. Furthermore, he found that the Minister was incorrect to find that financial dependency did not exist, as the financial assistance went beyond what is extremely welcome but non-essential support. Mr Justice Cooke indicated that it was the judgement of the Court that the Minister had applied an unbalanced approach to isolate the financial aspect of dependency and find dependency only to be relevant in cases of outright destitution.

We believe that this case has established important new rights for Irish citizens pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution. In particular, it has established that adult Irish citizens have rights to have their dependant and financially self sufficient (non EEA) family members reside with them in the State, and while these rights are not absolute, they are strong enough to place a weighty obligation on the State to objectively justify any infringement of those rights.

We wish to congratulate the O’Leary and Lemiere family on their successful outcome today.

Brophy Solicitors
24.02.12

Opening of the Irish Refugee Council Law Centre

Congratulations to the Irish Refugee Council (IRC) on the official opening of their new independent Law Centre!

The President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, last Friday formally launched the IRC Law Centre together with the European Database on Asylum Law at a very well-attended event at the Distillery Building. The Law Centre currently employs two solicitors and two legal officers. It aims to provide early legal advice to asylum seekers in the initial stages of the asylum process. The service can be reached through an outreach clinic, contacting the centre directly, or referrals from other organisations.

In his address, President Michael D referred to the protection gap and unmet need for legal advice for asylum seekers that the Law Centre seeks to fill. The President referred to his own previous and extensive experience as a TD dealing with numerous constituents who were facing difficulties with the immigration process.

Our own experience is that asylum claims are often poorly investigated and presented at the early stages, which leads to the need for further legal challenges later. This impacts negatively both on the applicants, who often wait a very many years for a final outcome, and on the courts system, which has become overburdened with unresolved asylum claims.

We anticipate that the Law Centre will provide valuable advice and support to applicants at the earliest stages of the process and help ensure that such claims are properly presented and future delays kept to a minimum.

We wish the Centre every success!

Brophy Solicitors

19.02.12

EU Treaty Rights & Article 8 : new UK decision on the application of Zambrano principles

The UK Immigration and Asylum Chamber last week determined Sanade and Others (British children - Zambrano  Dereci ) [2012] UKUT 00048 (IAC)  giving consideration to a number of highly relevant and fluid areas including the rights of British citizen children in light of the recent UK decision of  ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4 and the reliance on EU citizenship rights following the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Zambrano   and Dereci.  Of particular interest is the application of the so-called Zambrano principle as clarified in the more recent decision in Dereci where the parties involved have not exercised their Treaty rights. See our previous posting on the decision in Dereci.

The decision arose out of three linked cases that shared similar facts. Each appellant is married to a British woman and each have minor British citizen children who were either born in the UK or have lived there since an early age. Each appellant had been convicted of a criminal offence such that the Secretary of State sought to deport them. Notably, the citizen spouses and children had never exercised Treaty rights to move and reside in another Member State. They are British and have remained there throughout.

The appellants each put forward the argument, among others, that their removal would impair the rights of their citizen spouses and children to genuine enjoyment of the substance of their rights as EU citizens, relying on Article 20 TFEU. That is, that their family life would be infringed on by removal of the non-nationals spouse/father, and this would amount to a deprivation of proper enjoyment of the substance of EU citizenship rights of the remaining family members.

The Tribunal recognised that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, as reiterated in Zambrano. However, citing Dereci, the decision concludes that removal of the father in these cases, while it would have an adverse economic impact on all the families and would impact on the interests of each child living in a household with their father, it would not actually require the spouses or children to leave the UK. In short, economic reasons for maintaining family unity are not sufficient and the effectiveness of Union citizenship does not risk being undermined.

The Tribunal stated that the focus instead should be on the application of Article 8 stating at paragraph 90: “in our judgment, if on the facts removal of the appellant will not require the children or spouse to follow because they have no capacity for exercising their Treaty rights independent of the person facing removal, what is being impaired is not the right to reside in the EU but the right to enjoy family life whilst so residing.” 

The cases therefore fell to be determined on an assessment of Article 8, the protection afforded to family and private life by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Tribunal applied a balancing and proportionality assessment to the facts of each of the three cases, taking into account in particular, the best interests of the child. Following ZH (Tanzania), the Tribunal emphasise that the fact of the British citizenship of the children is held to be of particular relevance when balancing the interests of the State against those of the family, especially where the children have spent a considerable portion of their childhood in the UK and risk losing the advantages of growing up and being educated in their country of nationality, their own culture and their own language.

This decision is helpful for its summary of the principles in the highly significant cases of ZH (Tanzania), Zambrano, and Dereci. It is also instructive in showing the potentially limiting effect of the decision in Dereci. In cases where there is no exercise of EU Treaty Rights, it may be difficult to rely on EU citizenship rights and applicants may be better advised to focus on their family and private life protections under Article 8 of the ECHR.

Brophy Solicitors

17.02.12

Immigration and Human Rights Intern wanted for immediate start!

We are currently accepting applications for an intern to work with us on immigration and human rights cases.  If you have an interest in human rights and immigration and you have experience in legal researching, we would love to hear from you. The position is unpaid but we will contribute towards expenses.

Please contact Sarah McCoy on 016797930 or email your CV and a cover letter to:

Sarah.mccoy@brophysolicitors.ie

Judgment in the SZ Case

On 31^st January 2012 Mr Justice Gerard Hogan delivered judgment in the case of SZ v (Pakistan) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Attorney General and Ireland.

The case concerned a Pakistani national and Shia Muslim who had been involved with a voluntary Shia Organisation in Lahore, which held a commemorative service annually for a deceased imam. In 2001 however a volunteer was killed and so the applicant’s brother and a friend sought to avenge the death of the organiser and subsequently they killed a member of Sipah e Sabah, a radical Sunni Organisation banned by Pakistani authorities. The prohibited organisation sought to have the Shia treated as Non-Muslims. On the evening of the attack the applicant was shot in the leg by activists and a month later police arrested him and he claims he was ill treated whilst in prison.

Shortly afterwards the applicant was released from prison and he and his family fled to Karachi. In 2005 he briefly returned to Lahore following assurances that he would be safe, yet after receiving threats in relation to the annual commemorative service once again he fled to Kuwait before he ultimately travelled to Ireland.

The applicant claimed that he feared lack of police protection in Pakistan, yet his asylum claim was rejected in 2008 on the basis that he was able to move elsewhere in Pakistan and the decision was never challenged. Furthermore the Minister also rejected the applicant’s subsequent claim to subsidiary protection in stating that he didn’t believe the applicant had demonstrated a sufficiently serious risk of harm.

The applicant sought to challenge the decision of the minister in relation to a number of significant points.

Judgment

Firstly the applicant challenged before Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan the subsidiary protection and deportation orders decision made by Minster for Justice and Law Reform. The minister failed to grant such protection acknowledging the fact that there was a functioning police system in Pakistan and furthered pointed out that the Shipah e Sabah was banned in the country by authorities. On these grounds Mr. Justice Hogan refused to grant leave to challenge either the subsidiary protection or the deportation order.

In addition the applicant held that he had been denied an effective remedy “to appeal or to challenge otherwise the decision to refuse him a grant of subsidiary protection.” Mr. Justice Hogan looked to his earlier judgment in Efe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Reform, where he held that judicial review was a sufficient and effective remedy to vindicate the applicant’s rights under the Irish Constriction or any international obligations on the State.

Mr. Justice Hogan also reviewed the applicant’s challenge as to the principle of equivalence at EU law which he purports was violated due to the fact that he had no right of appeal in relation to the subsidiary protection decision. Mr. Justice Hogan referred to Cooke J’s decision in BJSA in which he pointed out the Procedures Directive which the applicant referred to did not require an appellate structure in relation to subsidiary protection applications, but rather only in respect of asylum applications.

Finally the applicant challenged s.3(1) of the 1999 Act which permits the Minister to make a deportation order consequently leading to “lifelong effects” and thus the applicant seeks a declaration of incompatibility with s.5(2) ECHR Act 2003. Although he discussed a great deal of ECHR jurisprudence on the matter Mr. Justice Hogan ultimately held that he would adjourn the application for leave pending the decision currently before him in the case of S v Minister for Justice, Equality and Reform.       

Brophy Solicitors
03.02.12

SHATTER ANOUNCES TWO INIATIVES: IMMIGRANT INVESTOR PROGRAMME AND START-UP ENTREPENEUR SCHEME

The Minister for Justice, Equality & Defence, Mr. Alan Shatter, TD, recently the introduction of two new immigration initiatives aimed at facilitating (non EEA) migrant entrepreneurs and investors who, in return for permission to reside in the State, are prepared to invest here for the purpose of saving or creating jobs.

The Immigrant Investor Programme:

The sort of investments envisaged will include a specially created low interest Government Bond, capital investment in an Irish business, endowments in the cultural, sporting educational or health areas will also be considered.The level and duration of financial commitment required from the Investor will depend on the nature of the investment but will generally range from €400,000 for endowment-related investments to €2 million in the new Immigrant Investor low-interest bearing Government Bond to be devised by NTMA in conjunction with the Immigration authorities. The level of investment in business entities where jobs are being created or saved will generally be €1 million and the Department will be guided by and reliant upon the advice and expertise of IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland in assessing individual proposals.

Approved participants in the Investor Programmes and their immediate family members will be allowed enter the State on multi-entry visas and to remain here for a defined period. Ordinarily this will be for a period of 5 years - reviewable after 2 years.

The Start-up Entrepreneur Programme:

The Start-up Entrepreneur Programme provides that migrants with a good business idea in the innovation economy and funding of €70k can be given residency in this State for the purposes of developing their business (this compares with a previous minimum funding requirement of €300k). No initial job creation targets will be set as it is recognised that such businesses can take some time to get off the ground. Projects will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee with State Agencies playing a key role in "picking winners" or those who demonstrate a good idea or the potential to be a winner.The business proposal must have a strong innovation component.The applicant must not be a drain on public funds.All applications for both programmes will be considered by an Evaluation Committee comprised of representatives of IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland, the following Government Departments; Finance; Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; Foreign Affairs and Trade; Health; other Government Departments as the need arises and the Minister’s own Department of Justice. Applicants must be of good character and be able to support themselves while in Ireland. Applicants will be required to attest to their bona fides on affidavit sworn here.

An Annual Report will be published on the operation of the Programmes and they will also be reviewed to ensure that they continue to meet their objectives. The Programmes offer no special access to Irish citizenship. Beneficiaries will be subject to the same rules as other migrants in that regard – i.e. generally residence in the State for at least 5 years.

Next Steps

The Minister indicated that he hoped to have the new schemes formally launched by mid March when the detailed rules governing the Programmes which are being worked upon by officials in the Department of Justice will be published. He said no new legislation is required as the pre-existing legislative powers of Ministerial discretion are sufficient to enable the programmes to operate in a flexible manner.

Irene Carney

irene@brophysolicitors.ie

01.02.12

DETERMINATION OF ZAMBRANO CASES TO DATE

Pamela Duncan in the Irish Times reported last week that more than 850 non-EU parents of Irish-citizen children have been granted residency in Ireland since the ECJ issued its ruling in the Zambrano decision which created rights of residency for parents of Member State citizen children. Apparently, six parents of Irish citizen children who were previously deported have been granted permission to re-enter the State. 

1000 cases have been processed to date by the Minister who said that the decisions were taken “in the best interests of the welfare of eligible minor Irish citizen children”.

The Irish Times reports that 700 cases remain outstanding; ‘In approximately half of those cases the department has requested further documentation or clarification from the applicants before their cases can be progressed. This number does not include other non-EU parents of Irish-born children who had an existing right of residency, for example where people were lawfully resident on a worker, spouse or student visa.’ 

We have a number of outstanding applications as well as a number of applications which we have requested a review following a negative decision. One such decision was reached upon the Minister’s determination that the father of an Irish citizen child who resides with his child in the State, was not seen to have shown evidence of a ‘relationship of dependency’ between both he and his child. Other applications are outstanding whereby the applicant parents reside outside of the State with their Irish citizen child(ren). We submit that a refusal of such applications is in turn a refusal to permit entry to the State by an Irish citizen. We are however pleased that one application concerning the father of an Irish citizen child residing outside of the State was granted after a nine month delay in determining the visa application. 

Various complications arise in the submission and in the determination of Zambrano applications. It seems to us that the very reliance on the word ‘Zambrano’ when applying for residency/Stamp 4 on behalf of a client triggers a delay on their application for residency where that application might also be based on other factors for example a relationship with an Irish citizen. We have also encountered situations whereby applications to renew a permission granted under leave to remain are delayed whenever submissions are made in respect of an Irish citizen child. Therefore, otherwise uncomplicated, straightforward applications for residency which would normally be considered rather promptly are faced with delays and requests for further and specific documentation. We note that in one of our cases, an applicant had been granted a visa to join his Irish partner in the State without any difficulty. He is also the father of his partner’s child, an Irish citizen. As a result, he was permitted to register under Stamp 4 when reporting to the GNIB, which in our experience has been standard practice, but was asked to make an application to the Minister for residency based on his parentage of an Irish citizen child. This application is still pending, the applicant has not been permitted to work, even for a temporary period and has been forced to return to his home country much to the dismay of his Irish partner and mother of his child. 

In another situation, two applicants from the same country, with the same background and immigration history had both submitted applications for leave to remain on the very same date, 3years ago. We were notified by the Repatriation Unit that both applications were due to be considered. One of the applicants had in the meantime become father to an Irish citizen child. His application for leave to remain was put on hold. His friend’s application was determined and was successful. 

We will keep you informed as matters develop and welcome your thoughts and comments on these issues. 

Sarah McCoy

sarah@brophysolicitors.ie

01.02.12

Update on Subsidiary Protection and Somali Claims

Last week we attended a very instructive training on recent developments on Subsidiary Protection (Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive) and Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The training was part of a series of masterclasses  by the Irish Refugee Council. 

Colm O'Dwyer BL took the morning session providing a helpful overview of recent developments in Ireland. Ronan Toal, a barrister at Garden Court Chambers in the UK, then shared his specialist knowledge and expertise in the application of subsidiary protection and Article 3 to Somali claims in particular.

A number of recent cases were discussed in the course of the training. Of particular interest was the most recent reported UK case dated 28^th November 2011 that considers the situation in southern and central Somalia and claims for protection: AMM and others (conflict; humanitarian crisis; returnees; FGM) Somalia CG. Following the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Sufi & Elmi v the United Kingdom [2011] ECHR 1045, AMM and others provides extensive further country guidance for southern and central Somalia. It is the first reported case in the UK to have found that there was a risk of serious harm to the claimant within the meaning of Article 15(c) in circumstances where there was no such risk arising under Article 15(b) or Article 3 ECHR. Essentially the Court held that a claim for subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) could be made out even in circumstances where there was no breach of Article 3 ECHR.

Ronan Toal also drew attention in the training to the findings in the decision in AMM and Others in relation to a claim under the Refugee Convention. The Court held that a claim for protection on grounds of religious persecution could be made out under the Refugee Convention where an individual was not in a position to comply with the strict al Shabaab religious rules.

These recent developments have implications for Somali asylum applicants who have previously been refused asylum. In light of the dire security and humanitarian situation in southern and central Somalia, a claim for subsidiary protection may be made out. Our own experience is that there continue to be lengthy delays in the Department of Justice determining. Furthermore, applicants for subsidiary protection may now be in a position to submit a new claim for asylum, particularly if they have been out of Somalia for a long period and are in a position to show difficulties they would have conforming with the strict al Shabaab regime.

Brophy Solicitors

23.01.12

Stay on Deportation Order Issued

A Nigerian man has been issued a stay on his deportation in the High Court today, despite alleged deception on his part in relation to his identity as a former male model working for a UK property firm. Mr Justice Hogan issued the stay but stressed that his decision was "exclusively" motivated by the welfare of a child "Baby C". The infant is the child of the woman who has made the aforementioned allegations. The man in question is part of unfinished District Court proceedings in relation to care and custody of this child. The stay on proceedings will hold until the District Court makes a decision. If the man is successful in the District Court, the State must reassess his deportation order on foot of the child’s right to the care and company of her father balanced against a fair immigration system. If he is unsuccessful, the stay on the deportation order will lapse.

The man in question entered the State illegally on another man’s passport but claimed asylum under his own name. The passport had been stolen in Vienna and thus the Nigerian gentleman pled guilty and served a 6-month sentence for handling stolen goods.

After forming a relationship with a professional Irish woman, it transpired he deceived her into thinking he lead an affluent lifestyle as a former male model working for a UK property firm. She had no knowledge of his criminal convictions or his involvement in the asylum process. The baby was born in late 2010 but the relationship had already broken down. The woman claims that the applicant’s interest in guardianship and custody are a mere ploy to aid his immigration issues.

As there seemed no particular hope of reconciliation between the pair, Mr Justice Hogan was of the opinion that should the gentleman be removed from the state, it was reasonable to believe that he would not have any contact with Baby C, thus he granted a stay on these grounds.

Brophy Solicitors

20.1.12

The Issue of Non English Speaking Deponents Swearing Affidavits

A recent article in the Law Society Gazette by David Boughton, a practicing barrister, explores the difficulties encountered by solicitors when swearing affidavits of clients who cannot understand English. He draws attention to a prevalent issue. No provision has been made for any procedure of swearing and filing of affidavits by litigants who speak little or no English in neither rules of court nor legislation as noted by Cooke J of the circumstances of ANM v Refugee Appeals Tribunal. 

The author notes the decision of Cooke J in Saleem v Minister for Justice in deciding on the striking out of an affidavit, which contained an error of communication. The judge recommended, given that the applicant did not speak English at all, the approach of a further procedure to be followed for the swearing of affidavits by such persons. It followed that the affidavit should be sworn in the language the deponent speaks and should then be translated by an appropriately qualified translator with both the original and translated document to be put in evidence as exhibits to an affidavit in English sworn by the translator. This was since adopted in the English courts in 1998.

This "three affidavit" procedure is now in use here in Ireland although some difficulties are obvious - such as the additional cost and expense of translation. Boughton warns though, that a failure to adhere to this procedure may require that proceedings be adjourned  to facilitate the filing of correct affidavits, and with adjournment orders attributing more costs he advises all practitioners to familiarise themselves with the procedures. 

Brophy Solicitors 

05.01.12

UK Immigration Figures Set to Drop

Following the release of Ireland’s falling asylum figures for 2011 comes speculation of a fall due in the number of migrants to the United Kingdom. The Guardian reports today a projected 10% fall in immigration to the UK due to the worsening financial crisis. 


This is still far from the election promise of the Conservative Government of tens of thousands drop in immigration figures. In fact the efforts of the coalition have been severely criticised as making very little headway in regards illegal immigration. Furthermore some new policies on immigration have been seen to hamper economic activity in the UK, such as decreasing the amount of foreign students entering the UK. The UK government remains steadfast in its support of the policies however. 


Read the article in the Guardian examining the difficulties in fulfilling coalition promises of a reduction.  


Brophy Solicitors
04.01.12

Judgment in Rizwana Aslam Case

Case Summary 


On the 20^th December 2011 Mr Justice Gerard Hogan issued judgment in the case of Rizwana Aslam v Minister for Justice and Equality, Garda National Immigration Bureau, Ireland and the Attorney General.

The case concerned a challenge against a Transfer Order made by the Minister pursuant to Article 7 of the Dublin II Regulations in respect of a Pakistani national and member of the Ahmadi faith.  Ms Aslam was also eight months pregnant at the time of the High Court hearing. The basis for the Transfer Order was that Ms Aslam had originally obtained a visa for entry to the United Kingdom and resided in the UK prior to claiming asylum in Ireland. In such circumstances, it is permitted by the Dublin II Regulations (or Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003) that an asylum seeker be transferred to the Member State in which they first arrived to have their asylum application determined. Minister had issued the Transfer Order in accordance with this law, and with agreement from the UK.

The primary relief sought before Mr Justice Hogan was an injunction restraining Ms Aslam’s removal to the United Kingdom. The injunction application was grounded on two main points; that Ms Aslam’s late stage of pregnancy prohibited removal at this time, and also that fact that her partner was a recognized refugee and residence in Ireland required that her application for asylum should be processed in this State.

Judgement

In his written judgment dated 29th December, Mr Justice Hogan firstly assessed whether Aslam and her partner’s relationship and previous marriage by proxy were sufficient to amount to a legally recognizable marriage or “unmarried partner in a stable relationship”, as per the wording of the Dublin II Regulations. Following a detailed review of the law in this area, Mr Justice Hogan recognized that Irish law does differentiate between married and unmarried couples in the area of asylum law. He cited Mr Justice Cooke’s previous dicta in the judgement of Hamza v Minister for Justice [2010] IEHC 427 as follows;

“ the recognition of the marital relationship of spouse and refugee ought not to be confined to cases in which proof is forthcoming of a marriage validly solemnized in foreign law and recognized in Irish law.”

Following Mr Justice Cooke’s guidance, Mr Justice Hogan concluded that Ms Aslam should be regard as being married to her husband for the purposes of Article 7. In the normal circumstance, it would follow from Article 7 that Ms Aslam should be permitted to remain in Ireland for the purposed of her asylum application, as her husband is a recognized refugee in this State. However, as indicated by Mr Justice Hogan, this is not an absolute entitlement, and he highlighted the important fact that the Minister was not put on notice of Ms Aslam’s family circumstances in the State. In fact, she indicated to the Minister that she was single. Mr Justice Hogan found therefore that the Minister cannot be faulted in issuing a transfer order against her and it was too late at that stage for her to exercise her Article 7 rights.

Being mindful of the fact that Ms Aslam was heavily pregnant, Mr Justice Hogan proposed to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining her transfer by either by sea or air to the United Kingdom but allowing a transfer by road to Northern Ireland on the understanding that she would not be removed from the island of Ireland until after the delivery of her unborn child.

Comments

We believe the significance of Mr Justice Hogan's judgement is twofold. Firstly, Mr Justice Hogan fairly and correctly recognised Ms Aslam's marital status despite the fact that her marriage was by proxy, and not legally solemnized in this State. We are happy to see the implementation of the Hamza judgement working to recognize the reality of an asylum seekers relationship status in this way. Secondly, Mr Justice Hogan's finding that the Minister cannot be faulted for excluding from his decision important and relevant information that was not provided to him is reasonable. This is the only reasonable finding that Mr Justice Hogan could make. It again highlights the importance for all applicants and their legal representatives to provide the Minister with full, detailed and accurate information relevant to the case. 

Brophy Solicitors

04.01.12

2011 Immigration Figures Released as Minister Looks Ahead to 2012

Ireland saw a sharp decline in the numbers of asylum seekers entering the country in 2011. Only 1250 people claimed asylum here last year, just 1/10 of the peak figure of 11,600 in 2002.

The decrease in figures has been attributed to increased control measures. These most recent figures are the ninth successive fall in numbers claiming asylum since its highest point ten years ago. But also relevant in the economic downturn as Ireland’s attraction as a desirable destination point wanes.

Minster Shatter announced the figures in a press release yesterday. Alongside statistics  for 2011 came welcome news for those involved in other immigration processes. A clear statement on policy in regards Family Reunification is promised. Also a six-month processing time can be expected for all standard citizenship application from this Spring onwards.

Other measures will include the implementation of an Immigrant Investor Programme, a start up Entrepreneur Programme for Immigrants, a review of the operation of the Pilot Visa Programme, implementation of a Civilianisation officer pilot programme at Dublin Airport, to be launched this month, and completion of work on the development of an English language/Civics test for naturalisation applicants. 

Minister Shatter also detailed that 2012 would see the department looking across the water: ‘In particular, the promotion of the Visa Waiver Programme in the context of the London Olympics will be a key priority with the aim of boosting tourism and visitors to Ireland. Similarly, new initiatives targeted at immigrant investors and entrepreneurs will be prioritised with the purpose of attracting inward investment and job creation.’


Minister Shatter's full statement is available here. 


Brophy Solicitors 
04.01.12 

Happy New Year from the Immigration Department!

This is our last day in the office until the New Year and we would like to thank all of our clients for their services, kind comments and interest in our blog!

The Immigration Law Department of Brophy Solicitors has had a busy and eventful 2011! We are pleased at how many of our difficult and complex immigration cases were resolved this year. Of course the ground breaking ECJ decision of the year, Ruiz Zambrano led to a major overhaul of policies concerning the rights of Irish citizen children and their family members. We anticipate further developments both on a domestic level and in the EU arising from this judgement. We continue to work closely with our clients to whom this decision applies and hope that 2012 will see the resolution of outstanding cases.

We saw a huge growth in work involving EEA family visas and Irish Spouse visa appeals and applications as well as more complex dependant family member visa applications and appeals.  Citizenship and Family Reunification applications continue to pose huge delays and backlogs for clients and we hope that 2012 will bring policies that will make way for a more coherent and efficient system.  We have a number of cases that we have recently issued proceedings on and await the outcome in 2012 –as always we shall endeavour to keep our clients and readers informed of developments in our casework!

We have really enjoyed working on our blog this year and welcome all of our readers’ comments and suggestions! We are very pleased with how the Irish Immigration Blog has developed and we will continue to update the blog and publish interesting articles in 2012! So thank you to all of our followers!  Next year, we look forward to the launch of the new and expanded Brophy Solicitors Website which will feature news articles, office developments, galleries, guest writer articles, events and lots of information for all of our clients so watch this space!

None of our work on the blog, website, twitter and Facebook would be possible without our legal executive for Immigration, Ruth Jones, our Immigration secretary, Johnathan McDonagh, and  our immigration interns Clara Enright, and Barrie Scott.  We really appreciate all of your hard work and research over the last few months and look forward to working with you in the New Year!

Again, we wish you and your families a happy holiday and a wonderful New Year!

Sarah, Karen, Irene and Rebecca.