In recent years, IMK Law has played an instrument role in the interpretation of law and various immigration Regulations by bringing a huge number of challenges against the Minister of Justice in the High Court. Our proceedings have not only helped our clients to get positive outcomes but they are also useful precedents for our colleagues and practitioners.
1. MN & WW -v- Minister of Justice (JR2021)
Our client who was married to EU citizen previously had his EUTR residency card revoked on the basis of Reg 27 & 28. He formed a new relationship and submitted his application as de facto partner with his new partner. His initial application was refused on the basis that he had failed to fulfil Parvaiz criteria of the Supreme Court of Ireland ruling. Our client accused to have had also serious disregard to the immigration law by engaging in marriage of convenience. Our client reviewed the decision of the Minister, however, the result was same. We challenged the Minister by way of Judicial Review in the High Court challenging the Minister that our client do meet the Parvaiz criteria of Supreme Court of Ireland. We also argued that our client’s previous immigration history was an irrelevant consideration in the light of Metock ruling of CECJ.
The case progressed for hearing with the following outcome:-
In March 2022, the case was heard by Justice Barr. The hearing took full two days where counsels from the both parties made their arguments. In june 2022, J Barr delivered his judgment quashing the decision of the Minister to refuse to treat our client as a permitted family member. Our client’s matter was remitted back to the Minister for a fresh consideration. We submitted a new representation as per the final order of J Barr. Our client has now been issued with 5 years permission as a permitted family member.
This case is of highest significance in the recent jurisprudence. It is recently, most cited case in the JR in the High Court. This case has brought a clarity to parvaiz criteria of SC of Ireland and the application of Metock case. We are proud to say that our this case will help our other colleagues Solicitors to help their clients who face refusals in the similar circumstances.
2. SA&NA -v- Minister for Justice (JR2021)
Our clients who are elderly in laws of a Lithuanian national. Both our clients came into the State on the visitors visa but later on they sought permission on the basis of their dependency of their daughter in law under EU Regulations, however, our clients’ applications were refused as the facts provided were deemed to be contradictory to the facts provided in support of their visitors visa. Our clients sought an internal review however the result was same.
We challenged the Minister decision in the High Court. The cases proceeded for hearing, however, one week before the hearing, our clients were offered settlement agreement by the Minister with the term to consider the review applications again. We submitted fresh representation to the Minister as per our Without Prejudice agreement pointing out all the legal and factual errors in her previous refusals. The Minister agreed with us and issued 5 years residence cards by accepting that our clients are in fact qualified family members of their Lithuanian citizen daughter in law.
Apart from our serious difficulties after Dar ruling in the Court of appeal, to get successful results in these cases was more than a miracle and our clients couldn’t get a better result.
We are so proud to be reason behind the happiness of this family to stay together under on roof. We are also proud to get successful results in dependency matters after DAR Rulings of the Court of Appeal.
3. MSA -v- Minister for Justice (JR2021)
This case is the most interesting case we have ever dealt with. Our client who was married to an Irish national, submitted his application for a certificate of naturalisation in May 2017. His application was approved in August 2018. Our client paid his fee for a certificate, however, due to an anonymous email complaint, the Minister started investigation into the genuineness of our client’s relationship with Irish national. Our client’s citizenship was put on hold until he approached us at the end of 2020. The Minister concluded her investigation in June 2021 and varied our client’s permission from stamp 4 to stamp 1.
We brought a Mandamus proceedings to compel the Minister to compete the citizenship application of our client. Our leave application was refused by Justice Burns in the High Court in April 2021.
We appealed the decision of the High Court in the Court of Appeal, three members bench led by Justice Noonan allowed our appeal unanimously. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for hearing.
The case was heard by Justice Hyland in the High Court. Justice Hyland delivered her judgment in the favor of our client and ordered the Minister to conclude his application within reasonable timeframe. Our client has now been issued with a fresh approval for certificate of naturalisation.
Of course, all these cases above will make a significant difference in the application and interpretation of immigration and constitutional laws of Ireland.
We, at IMK Law are proud to say that these cases have not only helped our clients but will also help our colleagues Solicitors to help their clients in similar situations.
IMK Law is a leading and instrumental Law Firm. We are helping to reshape the Immigration Laws of the State by seeking judicial intervention to provide clarity and interpretation of complex Immigration Regulations. This approach will also help Ireland to develop and upgrade their immigration laws to meet the modern standards such as the UK, Australia and Canada. We understand Ireland is an open exogenous economy. We have to open our boarders with clear immigration Regulations to help Irish economy prosper.
This approach to immigration law from IMK Law is an unprecedented in the history of Ireland and our office’s key role will always be remembered.
