Alauddin and Others v Minister for Justice

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 613
• Docket Number: Record No. H/JR/2024/1019

Between

Mohammed Alauddin, Naim Uddin and Nurjahan Begum

Applicants

and

The Minister for Justice

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 613

Record No. H/JR/2024/1019

THE HIGH COURT

Visa application – Financial dependence – Judicial review – Applicants seeking certiorari of the respondent's decisions to refuse their visa applications – Whether the respondent imposed an unreasonable evidentiary burden

Facts: The first applicant, Mr Alauddin (a dual British/Bangladeshi citizen), exercised his right to free movement within the EU by coming to Ireland in 2020. The second and third applicants, Mr Uddin and Ms Begum (the first applicant's brother and sister), were citizens of Bangladesh. They challenged the decisions of the respondent, the Minister for Justice, made on 15 May 2024 to refuse their applications for visas to enter the State on the basis that after the death of their mother in 2008 and the death of their father in 2015, they had been financially dependent on the first applicant. The applicants challenged the decisions on the grounds that: there was a lack of clarity as to whether educational financial support was deemed essential or non-essential by the respondent, and whether treating it as non-essential was an error of law or fact; the decision-maker imposed an unreasonable evidentiary burden, including a requirement for a "chain of evidence" linking remittances from the first applicant to specific expenditures made by the second and third applicants; the decision-maker erred in law in requiring proof of a relationship with "more than normal emotional ties" between the first applicant and the second and third applicants; and the decision was vitiated due to manifest errors contained in the decision.

Held by the High Court (Barr J) that the second and third applicants swore affidavits stating that they did not have any other source of income, other than what they received from the first applicant, supported by the bank records they provided and the four affidavits from their siblings and stepmother. Barr J held that it was consistent with the fact that when their father died, they were minors of 16 and 11 years of age respectively. He held that if the decision-maker was going to come to a conclusion which effectively rejected the entirety of that body of evidence, it was incumbent on him to do so in clear terms and to say why that evidence was being rejected; that was not done in the decision. Barr J held that the respondent erred in law in applying an unreasonable burden on the applicants in having to establish that day-to-day purchases were purchased with funds provided by the first applicant. Barr J noted that, having made key findings on dependency, the decision-maker continued by finding that the applicants had not provided sufficient information or documentary evidence of their social/emotional relationship with their EU citizen sponsor, which could be considered more than the "normal emotional ties" expected between siblings; consequently, the decision-maker found that the second and third applicants had not proven that they were financially or socially dependent on their EU citizen sponsor as claimed. Barr J accepted the submission that insofar as that portion of the decision may be taken as implying that there was an additional hurdle which had to be crossed by the applicants over and above showing financial dependency, the decision-maker had erred in law.

Barr J granted the applicants certiorari of the two decisions both dated 15 May 2024 in respect of the applications made by the second and third applicants.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Barr delivered electronically on the 14 ^th day of November 2025 .

Introduction

1 . The first applicant is a dual British/Bangladeshi citizen. He has exercised his right to free movement within the EU by coming to Ireland in 2020. He secured work as a kitchen manager. He now operates his own delivery business. He is 45 years of age.

2 . The second and third applicants are the first applicant's brother (26 years) and sister (21 years). They are citizens of Bangladesh and reside there.

3 . The second and third applicants challenge the decisions of the respondent made on 15 May 2024 to refuse their applications for visas to enter the State on the basis that after the death of their mother in 2008 and the death of their father in 2015, when they were aged 16 and 11 years respectively, they have been financially dependent on the first applicant, who has paid their school and college fees and has sent them regular cash payments to enable them to buy necessaries such as food, clothing, school books, and computer equipment.

4 . The applicants challenge the respondent's decision on the following grounds: that there was a lack of clarity as to whether educational financial support was deemed essential or non-essential by the Minister, and whether treating it as non-essential was an error of law or fact; that the decision-maker imposed an unreasonable evidentiary burden, including a requirement for a “chain of evidence” linking remittances from the first applicant to specific expenditures made by the second and third applicants; that the decision-maker erred in law in requiring proof of a relationship with “more than normal emotional ties” between the first applicant and the second and third applicants; and that the decision was vitiated due to manifest errors contained in the decision.

5 . The respondent submits that when read as a whole, it is clear from the decision that the respondent was not satisfied from the evidence before him, including the documentary evidence submitted in support of the applications, that the second and third applicants had discharged the burden of proving that they were financially dependent on the first applicant such as to entitle them to receive visas under the provisions of the Citizens Directive, or the 2015 Regulations.

Background.

6 . As this case has had a long history it is necessary to set out the background in some detail. It is not known when the first applicant went to the UK, but he was certainly there for a considerable period, as he referred to his parents and siblings visiting him there in 2006. They also intended to visit him there in 2007, but did not do so due to family circumstances.

7 . The first applicant resided in the UK until July 2020. While the first applicant had been residing in the UK, an application had been made to the UK government to give the second and third applicants visas to enter that country on the grounds that they were financially dependent on the first applicant. Those applications were refused in 2016.

8 . The first applicant came to Ireland in July 2020. On 23 November 2020, the second and third applicants applied for visas. Those applications were refused at first instance on 31 January 2022, on the grounds that the respondent was not satisfied that the second and third applicants were financially or socially dependent on the first applicant, and the respondent did not accept that the first applicant was habitually resident in the State.

9 . An appeal from that decision was lodged on 26 March 2022. Further supporting documentation was lodged on behalf of the applicants. That appeal was refused on the same grounds as at first instance.

10 . The applicants challenged that refusal by way of judicial review proceedings. In a reserved judgment delivered on 15 November 2023 ( 2023 IEHC 621), Jackson J. granted certiorari of the appeal decision. The matter was remitted back to the Minister for reconsideration.

11 . On 29 January 2024, the applicant submitted further documentation in support of their applications. In separate decisions issued on 15 May 2024, the respondent again refused the visa appeals submitted by the second and third applicants; save that the respondent accepted that the first respondent was an EU citizen (or in a similar position to one following Brexit) and was exercising his right to free movement within the EU. The respondent held that the second and third applicants had not demonstrated that they were financially dependent on the first applicant at the time of the reconsideration of their appeals by the Minister.

12 . On 11 November 2024, the applicants obtained leave to challenge these decisions by way of judicial review. The substantive hearing of the matter was held in July 2025.

Relevant Legislative Provisions.

13 . The first relevant legislative provision is Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (hereinafter “the Citizens' Directive”). The relevant article is Art. 3(2), which provides as follows:

“2. Without prejudice to any right to free movement and residence the persons concerned may have in their own right, the host Member State shall, in accordance with its national legislation, facilitate entry and residence for the following persons:

(a) any other family members, irrespective of their nationality, not falling under the definition in point 2 of Article 2 who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence, or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen.

(b) the partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested.

The host Member State shall undertake an extensive examination of the personal circumstances and shall justify any denial of entry or residence to these people”

14 . The provisions of the Citizens' Directive were implemented into Irish law by means of regulations; the most recent of these being the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 ( S.I. 548/2015). Regulation 5 deals with...