Zambrano - People seeking residence on basis of child

[walrusgumble]

well clearly, you got nothing to say, i should have realised earlier that no one speaks to you. all my point was, don't be giving negative advise to people. last comment! peace!

eh sorry, Bank holiday monday, better things to be doing. It is you that has nothing to say, leonex. Please do not get so arrgoant, it woud be like schooling a 5 year old. before you actually want to step up on this discussion, go and read the case law, it might be an intelligent discussion then. After, that, you might, just might know how to tell the difference between opinion and what the laws are.


The only solice in this, is, at least I am correct.

You smack of shear arrogance that you don't even bother link the cases that you refer too.

There is no point. You could get a Judge from the ECtHR here and you would not agree. Disagree all you want, its you thats in for a shock

[leonex4t5]

i actually thought my previous post would have been the llast, because i have been following your rage with morrisj and co, i actually thought they were the ones not giving you a chance, but clearly, i know what the problem is. you are suffering from obssesion of law, and you are acyually getting blinded by it, i was going to go deep on you now but i got a drink up in a minute. my point still remains about your comment of:

"zambrano prevents removal of a child because neither parent can stay.it never said a right to both parents.if one parent can stay there's nothing preventing child from staying."

is totally rubbish and unreasonable. so i suggest you either ignore me, or go read relevant case laws.

[walrusgumble]

i actually thought my previous post would have been the llast, because i have been following your rage with morrisj and co, i actually thought they were the ones not giving you a chance, but clearly, i know what the problem is. you are suffering from obssesion of law, and you are acyually getting blinded by it, i was going to go deep on you now but i got a drink up in a minute. my point still remains about your comment of:

"zambrano prevents removal of a child because neither parent can stay.it never said a right to both parents.if one parent can stay there's nothing preventing child from staying."

is totally rubbish and unreasonable. so i suggest you either ignore me, or go read relevant case laws.

I have nothing to say? Clearly? If you want me to embarass you and show you up for the spoofer that you are, then my all means proceed. It aint my time your wasting.

If on the other hand you want to know or learn something, then

go and google the websites of case law of ecthr and do what those other two posters are never capable of doing: knowing what they are talking about. all you are doing to stepping up to get stampped down, it is not worth it. if you have something accurate to suggest, i will be happy to discuss it.

people who are incapable of doing that should never be taken seriously and their views are negligable. they twist things and become dishonest to suit their own means (until its rebutted)

in case that you missed the point. immigration is law. the laws are what dictates who has rights and who does not. if you cite law then you are expected to discuss in detail and not wishy washy ideal that get you no where, or at least don't pretend to be an expert. that is fair point.

blinded by it? I do see what you are getting at but good luck when you are trying to say that to a judge. Its for the citizens of Ireland and not you. With regard to EU law, people like my self have come over here and shared their knowledge on EU law, only to be murdered because the facts don't suit your agenda. That really does not bother me, what really bothers me is a couple of lads just off the boat dare lecture me on the fundamental basic of EU law. ie when the Treaty does not provide what to do, its an internal matter, subject to the discretion of the member state, pursuant to their obligation under ECHR. Even a cursory glance on well respected EU law expers would indicate that the words "contraversial", "interesting" and "novel" have been used, to suggest that it is a new case and move from previous precedent. Heaven forbid someone mentions it, or some poor desepate sob will think somehow the Minister or ECJ will change its mind.

You don't expect sympathy coming from any country to people who come from safe countries and claim that they are being persecuted, despite COI suggesting the contrary (not all asylum seekers are bogus!) , nor do you expect sympathy to those who came simply to avail of residence via the back door.

People are quick to condone illegal immigrants and sham marriages, yet, never hear anyone complain about hearing stories about their own fellow country person telling a few tall tales about their country. I have heard a few Nigerians telling me its no where near as bad as some make out (lets not kid ourselves, some places are dangerous - delta)

But its the same in your own country.

why is it total rubbish and unreasonable. It may have been unreasonable for some parents not to have come to the compnany and mother and child in ireland when the child was born. it should be case by case basis as not all cases are the same, but where it merits, fine. ECtHR has clearly allowed for it (in ADULT CASES)

if you are going to go deep, I welcome it, but I am ignoring it, if you don't provide the cases, or straight forward opinion.

there are no relevant cases on this very very issue. This is why, the Irish courts wanted to send a few to europe in the first place, even if ECJ slaps it down, so be it, its then confirmed. but sadly other people have hidden agendas and demand it does not go.

Go and read relevant case law, that is very very rich

[leonex4t5]

please read ZH(tanzania) supreme court judgement (Best Interest of the child). also i want to say i am not a rude person, i only disagreed with what you said and i thought the way you responded after that was rather unecessary.

[walrusgumble]

please read ZH(tanzania) supreme court judgement (Best Interest of the child). also i want to say i am not a rude person, i only disagreed with what you said and i thought the way you responded after that was rather unecessary.

no you are not rude. Just because some one does not agree with another, regardless of the reason, does not make a person rude

http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-zh-tan ... 011-uksc-4





But you say that a child is deprive without both parents. Compare to other children, yes, that is fair enough. But, no non eu person has a right to live in the eu, bar if they have family - that is a fact, not an opinion.

If a parent, in the example you made, was in prison for drugs, it defeats their argument that they are here to raise the child.


as for the judgment, it is clear that both courts are now looking at eachother. First ECJ case to consider echr was carpenter v UK (which interestlingly ignored the ECtHR line under analysis of Article 8.2). other ecthr cases clearly ignored ecj and treaty rights (but of course, as it was an internal matter).

the case that you highlighted is no different to the ECtHR cases that involved applicants who were successful in claiming infringement of Article 8.

In all cases, the applicant and their family had substantital amount of time in EU. You look at the ECtHR cases involving serious crime, the applicant succeeded due to a seriously strong connection with the State.


Look at Irish Supreme Court case Dimbo 2008, which in a way confirms the case you suggested, the family had real connection with the state (at least around 5-7 years residence).

The case that you referred to will not be applicable to alot of the new cases as the facts are distinguishable. The difference in the length of residence will definitely be noticed and pointed out.


Even without the case, you should succeed the "insourmountable obstacle argument". You can not expecct 12 year olds, who have gone through the system, to now be expected to up sticks and go somewhere elese. It goes beyond what is hardship and inconvenience (which is not enough) and questions whether its proportionate (12 years olds rights to stay vs will it impact on the State's immigration system, what good and sufficient reasons are there to deport as per Dimbo)

It might not be hughely applicable to alot of the new cases.

no individual's rights are to superceede that of others, unless, their rights under artilce 3 of ECHR are infringed.

It should be worth pointing out, though I think the attitudes have changed, ECHR is not 100% completely transposed into Irish law. Section 3 of the HR Act 2003 excludes the courts, and they tend to look at domestic law first. There is a strange form of application in IReland

Going back to the example of one parent being involved in crime, that very case could be used to argue (in a family court) that its not in the interest of the child for that parent to be granted rights to the child. Then he is buggered. (i am not suggesting a parents ability to parent is in any way determined by criminal record or lack of)

[murphyslaw]

Two articles on the Judgment here:

http://murphyslawsolicitors.wordpress.com/

[ImmigrationLawyer]

Your Blog: "The Irish courts now face the prosepct of a deluge of Judicial Reviews of decisons where non-EEA parents of Irish citizens have been wrongfully refused the right to live and work in the State. "

No they won't, I don't think, because JR to challenge Deportation Orders are out of time, (under the 2000 Illegal Immigrants Trafficking Act s5). Parents of Irish children are making applications for revocation of DOs under s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act, and these are beng granted.

There are some JR's in a special "Zambrano List" which were issued before Zambrano, on basis of the Constiutional and Article 8 rights of the Irish children. Although, I think the reports of there being over 100 may be wrong, there only seemed to be 30 or 40 that I could see in the list.