Proof of recokonable time other than Stamps

[digbar]

Hi guys,

I am wondering if someone have a situation similar to mine.

I am a Non-EEA national working in Ireland for a while.
I arrived in Ireland with a student visa and started working as a part-timer.
I got my critical-skills permit beginning of June.
However at the time INIS had still the ticket queue scheme that we needed to get there early.
I went there a couple of times but didn't manage to get a ticket in neither.
AS one is allowed to work full-time in a student visa in summer time, so I decided to try in future date, which I ended up putting off too much.
In the end, I only managed to get my new Stamp 1, 4 months later in September when they launched the appointment system.
My question is if I can use my Critical skills letter as proof of reckonable time since June and explain the case.

Hope someone knows something about it and can help me out.

Thanks a mil.

[littlerr]

No. Stamp is the your only proof.

You were still considered a student if you were working under the Stamp 2. Work permit letters don't mean anything. They are just a permit that allows you to work within a certain date range.

[digbar]

No. Stamp is the your only proof.

You were still considered a student if you were working under the Stamp 2. Work permit letters don't mean anything. They are just a permit that allows you to work within a certain date range.

I get ye.

They should accept it.
In the end, it's still a government official document which was granted permission to work.

Thanks for you reply.

[Obie]

If it is a permission given by the minister for you to stay in the state, then it will suffice, provided it is a letter by the minister authorising your stay in the state.

[littlerr]

If it is a permission given by the minister for you to stay in the state, then it will suffice, provided it is a letter by the minister authorising your stay in the state.

The OP was referring to the work permit issued by DBEI. It's not a permission given by the minister. The work permit allows a person to work during a given period of time. The holder of the work permit then needs to go to Garda station or GNIB to register themselves. The recknoable time starts on the day they receive their stamp.

P.S. for naturalisation purposes, even the letter issued by the minister does NOT count. All non-EU applicants need to submit copies of their stamps as the only permitted proof for naturalisation applications. The only exception is refugees where if granted permission, the start date can be back traced to the date of arrival in Ireland.

[Obie]

If it is a permission given by the minister for you to stay in the state, then it will suffice, provided it is a letter by the minister authorising your stay in the state.

P.S. for naturalisation purposes, even the letter issued by the minister does NOT count. All non-EU applicants need to submit copies of their stamps as the only permitted proof for naturalisation applications. The only exception is refugees where if granted permission, the start date can be back traced to the date of arrival in Ireland.

I am not sure that is correct. For argument sake I am prepared to accept that your first point is correct.
However the second one is not, as lawful residence for the purpose of the act commence from when the minister issues permission and not when a stamp is endorsed by an immigration officers.

This is a matter on which even the Supreme Court has ruled.

[littlerr]

I am not sure that is correct. For argument sake I am prepared to accept that your first point is correct.
However the second one is not, as lawful residence for the purpose of the act commence from when the minister issues permission and not when a stamp is endorsed by an immigration officers.

This is a matter on which even the Supreme Court has ruled.

To be honest I've never seen anyone trying to challenge the supreme court based on this. Naturalisation is not a right, so you just have to stick to whatever's in the statue.

Per Irish Statue book S.I. No. 284/2011 for the purpose of calculating reckonable residence,

......enter your permissions as evidenced in your passport and verify that you satisfy residency requirements......

Your application will be rejected right away if the dates in your passport are different from what you enter in the residency calculator. This is the preliminary check in which the staff just tick all the boxes - one of them is to verify whether the dates you have in the passport are the same as the dates in your application AND your residency calculator. If any date doesn't match, it constitutes an automatic rejection on the first stage.

The permission letter merely acknowledges that the minister is satisfied that you can live in the state, but you still have to (1) buy health insurance in most cases, (2) bring your spouse's original passport and permission with you to the Garda station (if the permission is based on spouse), (3) provide biometric information (photo, signature, sometimes fingerprints), (4) present the original passport, and (5) pay 300 euro registration in most cases, before you are issued a certificate of registration. Many local Garda stations will impose their own additional requirements such as copy of lease and bank statements. You can argue it's an abuse of power on that though.

[Obie]

There is nothing in the Irish statute book that provide support to your assertion.

It is one thing saying that a person must provide certain evidence to satisfy the minister that they have recokonable residence. It is quite another thing to say, if a person cannot provide that evidence then they do not have a recokonable residence.

The question of whether a person has recokonable residence is a question of law. If the minister of Justice provides a letter to an individual granting him permission to stay in the state, that person has permission from the date of promulgation of the minister's letter.

Furthermore your analysis is clearly at variance with the Supremem court decision in Sulaimon, as to when Recokonable residence is commenced.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/992A7E ... D4003C729B

[littlerr]

I'm afraid you are confusing the judicial review by high court with the judgement by supreme court.

You provided an example of judicial review. In Ireland, a judicial review is done on a case-by-case basis, and is carried out by High Court, not the Supreme Court. They do not change any legislation.

If you want your words to be enshrined in the legislation, someone will need to go all the way to the Supreme Court to fight for this. I honestly don't see this happening.

If you have a look at other posts, there are some people who have done judicial review before for various reasons. Most of them won - but that comes with a huge cost, both on money and time. You are talking about
a four-digit number of money and months of waiting and arbitration at the very least.

Most people who apply for judicial review are those who have waited for years and did not hear anything back. The judicial review process normally forces the government to respond. Normally the government will compromise so that it does not need to go to High Court (as it costs money on the government side as well).

Why get yourself into all of these when you can just apply a few days later?

[Obie]

Did you actually read the case, and what it established.

The Supreme court is the highest court in Ireland, and only them are the final abiter of the law.

Their interpretation is the law of the land.

[littlerr]

Did you actually read the case, and what it established.

The Supreme court is the highest court in Ireland, and only them are the final abiter of the law.

Their interpretation is the law of the land.

Did you actually read the case? It is a judicial review delivered by the High Court, not the Supreme Court. The judgement has no bearing whatsoever on any legislation.

[Obie]

But the Supreme court dismissed the state's appeal against that decision in 2012.

Therefore that judgement was endorsed.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/82A0C6 ... DB005285FA

I don't quite agree that it has no bearing. If you are correct, which I am confident you are not, then what will be the point of the court, if its decision has no bearing on the minister?

[littlerr]

But the Supreme court dismissed the state's appeal against that decision in 2012.

Therefore that judgement was endorsed.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/82A0C6 ... DB005285FA

I don't quite agree that it has no bearing. If you are correct, which I am confident you are not, then what will be the point of the court, if its decision has no bearing on the minister?

You could argue that it has bearing towards IBC applications. I'm not sure what's involved in an IBC application, so I'm not going to comment on that. What the OP asked here is the adult naturalisation application (Form 8 ). The judgement has no bearing towards it.

Then let's take a look at the actual judgement.

Accordingly it is necessary to scrutinise the reasoning of the Departments of State involved in this case with some care lest an immediate resolution of the case should give rise to further unintended confusion in the administration of what is an already complicated immigration and naturalisation system.

The case is ultimately due to ambiguous wording in the policy, as the definition of "permission" is ambiguous in what's stated in IBC applications.

The judgement here is to ask INIS to give clearing wording to avoid unintended confusion.

The adult naturalisation application (Form 8 ) and the related legislation (S.I. No. 284/2011) are quite clear here: It explicitly asks for stamps in the passport. I don't think this should cause any confusion.

You could argue otherwise, but at least I think you can agree that these extra few days will be causing unnecessary delays and potentially costly judicial reviews.

[Obie]

Recokonable residence is needed for counting whether the children of non national acquire citizenship at birth. It is also relevant to Naturalization applications.

If you read the judgement, you will see that the court confirmed that Recokonable residence commences from when the minister grants a person permission and not when Garda stamped their passport.