ImmigrationLawyer wrote:walrusgumble wrote: in october 2009 judge cooke gave a decision for long term residency.hang on , will get the judgment on courts.ie.
I'm not aware of any relevent decision from judge Cooke. Judge Clarke stopped ppl bringing these cases with the Nawaz case ... but she's not doing asylum / immigration cases any more
beady eye: an order of mandamus is an order of the Court, given in the judgement, to make the Minister act, ie make a decision on the application. The question is: how badly do you want a quic decision and are you prepared to risk an order that you have to pay the Minister's court costs (these could be tens of thousands)? It is a gamble that not many are prepared to take. Your solicitor might be willing to give it a go if you were prepared to take on the risk.
Ya accoridng to courts.ie she is stuck in the family law courts, so i . (My god have mercy on the appliants's soul) I have been trawling though courts.ie and balii or ages to find the actual transcript. To my surprise, no luck. I think I can get a hard copy somewhere i will scan it and put it up. the basic ruling, if my memory serves me correct was :
+ The court made the convenient Separation of powers arguement of not having jurisdiction to dictate how government should deal with resources. This would havw been championed by Supreme court Judge Hariman, if it went to appel. The courts accepted the poor mouth line of how broke it was and how it was unable to staff additional personnel.
+It also took the , Minister has absolute discretion and importance of citizenship and importance of full checks, delays of such not being the minister's fault.
+ The major one, the applicant must show that the delay is seriously adverse to their life eg -a delay in say a work permit could causw serious implication as they risk becoming illegal and loose their job. most citizens are often on stamp 4. However, big thing. the applicant, before bringing the matter to court, must in writing, put these problems to the Minister.
+ A major bone of contention was, why should other complaints be prejudice by the delay, and tolerate someone behind them in the que, be allowed to skip them simply because that applicant can afford to go to court.
+ As someone correctly pointed out. the Minister satisfied the judge that there was no bad intention on Their part ie they ansered all the letters (hmmm) and put notices on their websites (coUld not even get their predictions accurate.
+ to be blunt, Edwards previous cases, was like a fire cracker, ie soo many mandamus cases were filed in court. It was a clear policy decision
in light of judgments its a major gamble, well not really as cost wise it might not be so bad if refused exparte. I would be every careful, as some lawyers will take a "punt" without putting their client into serious finacial problems.the solicitors have little to loose
whilst hogan j might be more understandable, it is no excuse for him to ignore lawfull precedent - unless here is serious delay, regardless who wss the judge.
6 month rule refers to the similar obligtion the state owes to applicants to have ru treaty rights considered eithin 6 monthd. see the edward's case. (something that was convieniently distinguished)
I was just wondering about the 6 month enforcement they also mentioned.