- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator
How is it related to Asylum then?AN IRISHMAN and his Chinese-born wife have been refused permission to bring a High Court challenge to the State's refusal to allow the woman's widowed mother to live with them in Ireland.
The action by the Lusk, Co Dublin family -- who are all Irish citizens -- was seen as a test case, relating to the rights of Irish citizens to have their non-EU dependent relatives live with them here.
CitizensInformation.ie wrote:I am an Australian married to an Irish citizen and living in Cork. Can my Australian father come to live with us? He is on an Australian state pension.
If your father can show that he can support himself in Ireland and if he has private health insurance, he may come and live in Ireland with you.
Where is the legislation which says that?agniukas wrote:benifa, I think that was already discussed, but the australian and chinese cases are not the same, as the chinese are visa required nationals and there are no provisions for them in legislation. australians are not visa required nationals.
Well, any tourist can arrive for a visit of up to 90 days. Is there no legal difference between a tourist and a relative of an Irish citizen?agniukas wrote:.. a visa required national (in this case chinese mother in law of an irish national) can arrive on c visit visa....
An entry visa does not need to be extended if the person is already in the country. What is required is either the right or permission to remain.agniukas wrote:a visa required national (in this case chinese mother in law of an irish national) can arrive on c visit visa which cannot be extended beyond the 90 days, no exceptions.
the non visa required national simply extends their permission as a self supporting visitor or as a dependant of irish national with stamp 3 in both cases.However, until we see the legislation which provides that the non-EEA national parent of the spouse of an Irish citizen may reside in Ireland if s/he has private health insurance, it is impossible to say whether or not the requirement to hold an entry visa even comes in to it.
Is it the same or different legislation which states:agniukas wrote:the non visa required national simply extends their permission as a self supporting visitor or as a dependant of irish national with stamp 3 in both cases.
?agniukas wrote:there is no way around for those who are visa required nationals and whose the only option to arrive to ireland is with c visit visa. they cannot extend that permission with the immigration officer as it is not extendable.
Southern_Sky wrote:A bit more detail on this case:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ire ... 38935.html
Saying that it´s "not equivalent" sounds like a mockery to me. Obviously the situation is exactly equivalent, with the only exception of the excercised treaty-rights. What´s the Irish state afraid of in this case? That the Irish citizens spent more of their money (for the mother) instead of saving it (if they do I hope they don´t do it with an Irish Bankirishtimes.com wrote:Tinting Wang was not in a position equivalent to that of a non-Irish EU worker who came to Ireland to take up a job and wished to have a non-EU dependent mother come to live with them, Mr Justice Edwards added. The non-Irish EU worker was exercising their freedom of movement rights under EU treaties and that was not the case here.
)? .
Landmark immigration case settled
Monday, 17 November 2008
The Government has settled a High Court case in which an Irish citizen of Chinese extraction challenged the refusal to allow her mother to stay here.
But the Government has ensured that no precedent has been set for other Irish families in a similar position.
Last month the High Court granted the Moylan family leave to apply for a judicial review of the Government's decision to refuse Tingting Moylan's mother, Lihua Wang, permission to reside here as the dependent mother of an Irish citizen.
Advertisement
According to the Immigrant Council of Ireland's senior solicitor, Hilkka Becker, the leave was granted on the grounds that Irish citizens are discriminated against in comparison to other EU nationals in relation to family reunification.
Ms Wang came to Ireland last June to visit her daughter and son-in-law, John Moylan, and their two young sons, Gerard and Michael.
According to Ms Becker, both John and Tingting Moylan are working and Ms Wang has been an invaluable support in caring for her two grandchildren.
She said if Ms Moylan was a French national living and working in Ireland she would be permitted to be joined by her dependent parents from China under EU free movement rules.
Ms Becker said that it was unfortunate that, because the Government settled this case out of court, no precedent has been set for other Irish families in a similar position to the Moylans.
That means that if a similar case were to arise, the chances are that it may well have to shoulder the cost and emotional strain of bringing another case before the courts before the situation is resolved.
She called on the Government to address this situation as soon as possible to end the unnecessary hardship faced by immigrants and Irish citizens.
Monday November 17, 2008
Goverment settles "reverse discrimination" against Irish citizen immigration case
Last month, the High Court granted the Moylan family leave to apply for a judicial review of the Government’s decision on the grounds that Irish citizens are discriminated against in comparison to other EU nationals in relation to family reunification. This was the first time the ICI – Independent Law Centre has brought a case on those grounds.
Lihua Wang was denied permission to reside in Ireland as the dependent mother of an Irish citizen.
Ms Wang came to Ireland in June 2008 to visit her Irish daughter and son-in-law, Tingting and John Moylan, and their two young sons, Gerard and Michael.
“Both John and Tingting Moylan are working and Lihua has been able to provide them with invaluable support in caring for her two grandchildren,â€
Now this judge wants to redefine reverse discrimination to mean something else, where both
76 Those governments further submit that that interpretation of Directive
2004/38 would lead to unjustified reverse discrimination, in so far as nationals
of the host Member State who have never exercised their right of freedom of
movement would not derive rights of entry and residence from Community law for
their family members who are nationals of non-member countries
An Irish born Italian Citizen (Dual), who never moved outside IrelandIrish Times, quoted Mr Justice Edwards as saying
For there to be reverse discrimination, two people must be in a situation
of equivalence and one must be treated differently, but that was not the
case here.
Tinting Wang was not in a position equivalent to that of a non-Irish EU
worker who came to Ireland to take up a job and wished to have a
non-EU dependent mother come to live with them, Mr Justice Edwards
added. The non-Irish EU worker was exercising their freedom of
movement rights under EU treaties and that was not the case here.
I guess the point is this: The Government feared that they'd lose the case in court.agniukas wrote:well, probably when they say 'it was settled' it still does not mean that the irish family won....
all immigration and asylum cases are put into a list in the high court entitled "asylum". Thats the journalist begin lazy/stupid... but hey this is the irish independent we are talking about.benifa wrote:How is it related to Asylum then?AN IRISHMAN and his Chinese-born wife have been refused permission to bring a High Court challenge to the State's refusal to allow the woman's widowed mother to live with them in Ireland.
The action by the Lusk, Co Dublin family -- who are all Irish citizens -- was seen as a test case, relating to the rights of Irish citizens to have their non-EU dependent relatives live with them here.
If the spouse of an Irish citizen wants to bring their parent over - there is already provision for this, according to Citizens Information:
CitizensInformation.ie wrote:I am an Australian married to an Irish citizen and living in Cork. Can my Australian father come to live with us? He is on an Australian state pension.
If your father can show that he can support himself in Ireland and if he has private health insurance, he may come and live in Ireland with you.
the italian irish person will also be able to say they have rights under the EU treaties such as artilce 17 and 8 and thrity something which expressed freedom of workers,services etc, so their rights don't fall just under the directive but more importantly, under the treaty. a tiny bit like in Chen case in 2004 (ie the way the ECJ tried to reason favourably to the applicants despite strong case law against them).acme4242 wrote:Metock Case law, Submission by the Irish Government. The Irish Government clearly defined reverse discrimination in their submission.
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/f ... f=C-127/08Now this judge wants to redefine reverse discrimination to mean something else, where both
76 Those governments further submit that that interpretation of Directive
2004/38 would lead to unjustified reverse discrimination, in so far as nationals
of the host Member State who have never exercised their right of freedom of
movement would not derive rights of entry and residence from Community law for
their family members who are nationals of non-member countries
the Irish citizen, and the comparable other EU citizen, both have to
have exercised EU freedom of movement.
Mr Justice Edwards judgment is flawed , (if the Irish Times quoted him correctly)
An Irish born Italian Citizen, who never moved outside IrelandIrish Times, quoted Mr Justice Edwards as saying
For there to be reverse discrimination, two people must be in a situation
of equivalence and one must be treated differently, but that was not the
case here.
Tinting Wang was not in a position equivalent to that of a non-Irish EU
worker who came to Ireland to take up a job and wished to have a
non-EU dependent mother come to live with them, Mr Justice Edwards
added. The non-Irish EU worker was exercising their freedom of
movement rights under EU treaties and that was not the case here.
and never exercised their freedom of movement rights, is still a
beneficiary of EU law. 2004/38/EC
So even Mr Justice Edwards example is flawed.
You don't have to always exercise freedom of movement
to be a beneficiary of EU law. You just need a different EU passport,
and be engaged in work, a student, or have enough money etc.
How you got to Ireland is not a factor in EU Law.
So an Irish born but with Other-EU Citizenship, should have been used
to judge equivalence, if that is the road he wanted to take.
I think both the Judges definition of reverse discrimination
and even his example using his own definition is flawed.
As he did not compare like with like.
