Rights of rejected non-EU extended family members of EU citizens for achieving a righteous verdict

Question

Check out this interesting discussion carefully.

Now, suppose that I am a citizen of Ireland and I reside in a non-EEA country with my spouse, children, dependent parents and an unmarried sibling (who has been a member of the household since some 30 years or so). I wish to move to another EU country (let's say Germany; or, interestingly let's say I moved to Germany for 6 months to practice the Surinder Singh route to come back to Ireland). FACTS: My spouse is genuine, my genuine children are minors, my parents are genuinely dependent on me and I can prove that, and finally my unmarried sibling is a household member since 30 years. Under EU law, it is clear that all of my family is eligible to relocate to an EU country (other than Ireland; or in fact Ireland if I use Surinder Singh). BUT, it seems from that discussion that the rights of Extended family members are not as strong as those for Core family member, which User Relaxed confirms with some examples. Precisely, if they refuse my extended family member's (sibling's) application (even though I provide extensive and sufficient evidence) on say any grounds they like, I would effectively not have anything to claim since my there is no right possessed by my sibling as my other Core family members have in EU legislation. This way, my sibling would be left behind and I could not even argue for him in a court as he doesn't have any right in EU legislation like my other family members (who are "Core") have. I think this is why the lines about Extended family members' rights is a namesake thing. Do you have anything to prove me wrong? Do genuine Extended family member cases always win in the end provided there is sufficient evidence?

Answer 1

There are three factors: the law, the facts and discretion

As a general rule, an administrative decision maker has to exercise their discretion to decide what the facts are and apply the law to those facts to arise at a decision. Usually the law will specify what must be considered, what can be considered and what must not be considered in making the decision.

Details differ by jurisdiction but judicial review can only examine errors of law made by the decision maker, not errors of fact or application of discretion. That is, if the decision make followed the law in deciding the facts and correctly applied the law to those facts then the judicial review will fail.

It is an error of law if the decision maker shows bias, does not give a fair hearing, fails to follow the mandated legal process, considers things that should not be considered (or vice-versa), reaches a conclusion on the facts that the evidence does not reasonably support or incorrectly applies the law (e.g. deciding red means go) among others.

Deciding on “silly grounds” is clearly a reviewable error.