- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Not true. You need an EUTR visa. If you are accompanying your spouse and have all the relevant documentation on you, properly translated and attested, you might get in the airport anyway. Or you might not.
However, even if that were not the case, you will still be able to secure visa at the port in accordance with Regulation 4(5).(3)(a) A qualifying family member who is not a member of a class of non-nationals specified in an order made under section 17 of the Immigration Act 2004 (No. 1 of 2004) as not requiring an Irish visa shall be in possession of a valid Irish visa as a condition of being granted permission to enter the State.
But as I said before, I am a national of a country that does not require a visa to enter Ireland for up to 90 days. What you are saying is that I still should apply for a visa before going back to Ireland?
I believe you are the one who does not understand what visa means, you have no clue of Irish law and court case laws.
This is EU law, this is the correct position of the law, this is Regulation 4(5) of the Irish 2015 Regulation. This Judge is one of Ireland's most respected. His decision was not challenged and a basis of EU law. Mrs Raducan was accordingly issued damages.Raducan & Anor -v- MJELR & Ors [2011] IEHC 224 (03 June 2011) wrote:
23. It is clear from the evidence of Sergeant Biggins – indeed, he swore an affidavit to this effect – that such visas cannot be obtained at Dublin Airport and that any third country spouse can only apply on line from abroad for such a visa. This is clearly is a manifest breach of Article 5(2), since it could hardly be said that the State has afforded “such persons every facility to obtain the necessary visas.” One need hardly add that the absence of such a facility means that the State is also plainly failing in its obligation to issue such visas “as soon as possible and on the basis of an accelerated procedure.” There was thus a clear breach of the Directive in that Ms. Raducan was not offered the possibility of securing a visa on her arrival at Dublin Airport.
24. Nor can it be said in the present case that the State has complied with its duty with regard to Article 5(4) which was, before turning the applicant back, to give her “every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence.” In this context it was striking that the State had plainly not given its immigration officers appropriate training regarding the family residence card, since neither Garda McCormack nor Sergeant Biggins had ever encountered such a card prior to the present litigation and nor were they aware of same.
I will have no problem accepting that.Granista wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 6:30 pmThe law is the law. But there are very few lawyers working for INIS, and what actually happens on the ground day to day has very little to do with the law.
A pinch of reality would be very useful to the people you are giving advice to, its no good to them you spouting on about what you think this law and that law means if that doesn't reflect the reality. And it doesn't.