confusing /conflicting advice from visa lawyer in uk

[Donutz]

the reason she doesnt go for an irish visa is because it is not free ( i could be wrong ) it will take time to process , it is a lot of hassle for just one flight to and fro.

Why wouldn't it be free? Having her apply as the wife of an UK citizen passing through together and thus covered by the directive. The INIS site state such applications are free (link has been posted before?). It shouldn't take much time (accelerated procedure), maybe a week or so, two if unlucky? It should be hassle free... that it might not be (just as it's a pain in the b*tt*m to get a UK visa from the Mainland).

And if they point out you are also Irish, then 2004/38 stil applies since you excersized your freedom of movement in the UK, after which they also apply in Ireland. Add a copy of the old " family member of EU/EEA national" with the application if need be?

Which may complicate things is that dual nationals cannot derive rights from the directive anymore simply by living in one of the countries they are an EU national of. But you applied when it was still perfectly fine.

Edit: Though maybe INIS would realize you are also Irish and that under the current explination of the directive your wife is not covered by it. But the application should still be free even if they would reject it for this reason. If it's the hasstle to give it a try I cannot say.But then it would seem it would be best to entirely avoid Ireland with yuor wife (!!). If you act dumb though " I'm a Brit, my wife has an article 10 Residence Card from UKVI, we thus are entitled to a free visa and we apply for such a free vis" and they do issue it it takes all your worries away.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Donutz

[Richard W]

Yes I realize the UK does not automatically accept that card, but on the other hand they are legally obliged to give here a visa if she arrives at the border and they don't accept it as I have EU rights - I've lived and worked in France for over 10 years

For south-north trips, the Irish border seems to be simply closed to visaless visa nationals. I strongly suspect the same applies to north-south trips, but I don't know. I haven't heard of any legal challenges to this state of affairs.

I don't know if one could get Solvit on the case to find out.

We are just going to the UK for a short visit , but I don't fancy all the effort to get a Family Permit as this involves one or two 800km return trips to Paris and far too much paperwork - I have an allergy to this as I'm dyslexic.

I suggest you start a new topic about visaless surinder singhing. For immigration purposes, Britain and France have a land border for the channel tunnel and for ferries - British immigration in France and French immigration in England. It's the UK Border Force who would deny you passage, not the transportation companies. You could in principle just travel using your passports, marriage certificate and evidence that you are working in France (or however you are exercising your treaty rights) and that it is your home. I know nothing of the practicalities other than that is possible to make the journey without a family permit.

------------

For editing posts, there is a frame around the text area. The icon in the top-left hand corner allows you to switch between formatted and unformatted views. That can be used to switch views between formatted and unformatted. I find formatted views unsuited to point-by-point replies.

[Richard W]

If you act dumb though " I'm a Brit, my wife has an article 10 Residence Card from UKVI, we thus are entitled to a free visa and we apply for such a free vis" and they do issue it it takes all your worries away.

The problem is that, as far we we can tell, Mrs Dirtycash does not have a current Article 10 residence card, and possibly has never had one. What she has is an Article 20 permanent residence card.

Assuming it's then factually correct, correct the 'my wife has' to 'my wife has had'. I think leaving that little word out could have dire consequences if one were applying for a UK visa. I'd also be nervous about the lack of candour.

What might help is that Mrs Dirtycash's permanent residence might entitle her to a free Irish visa.

[Richard W]

Non EEA national family members of EEA nationals with dual nationality, e.g. British and Irish, used to be able to use one of those nationalities to reside in the other country via the EEA regulations.

My question was whether the privilege of dual nationals was a correct interpretation of the EU rules.

However, the rules changed following an ECJ ruling, and this is no longer possible.

I presume you're referring to the original McCarthy case. (There's another important McCarthy case - different family - about the British refusal to accept Spanish Article 10 residence cards.)

It seems that it was the British regulations that changed, not the EU rules. Unless the Dirtycashes have lived in the EEA outside the UK, it seems that any 'temporary' (Article 10) or permanent (Article 20) residence cards ever held by Mrs Dirtycash were not properly issued under Directive 2004/38/EC. Fortunately, the British regulations allow decisions made under the old interpretation to stand. As I understand it, Mrs McCarthy's husband was refused a residence card on the grounds that his wife wasn't a worker.

[Donutz]

If you act dumb though " I'm a Brit, my wife has an article 10 Residence Card from UKVI, we thus are entitled to a free visa and we apply for such a free vis" and they do issue it it takes all your worries away.

The problem is that, as far we we can tell, Mrs Dirtycash does not have a current Article 10 residence card, and possibly has never had one. What she has is an Article 20 permanent residence card.

Assuming it's then factually correct, correct the 'my wife has' to 'my wife has had'. I think leaving that little word out could have dire consequences if one were applying for a UK visa. I'd also be nervous about the lack of candour.

What might help is that Mrs Dirtycash's permanent residence might entitle her to a free Irish visa.

Yep, I meant to write and should have written " has had" (I thought she did use to have such a card in the past according to Dirtcash, but haven't read back all posts).

DirtyCash could explain in the covering letter for the free visa that his wife had a RC under article 10 and include a copy of this expired card/sticker and the current permanent one that bears no such explicit tekst (" is a family member of an EU national"). Together with ofcourse a copy of the marriage certificate etc. They would then either get the visa (taking away all headaches and worries) or be denied one which would make it quite clear that there would be no way or most unlikely that they could pass through without visa at checkin or the border.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Donutz

[Richard W]

Does a zig-zag route help? I understand one of the reasons for flying from Dublin is to avoid British taxes. For example, one of my colleagues who lives in Cambridge recently flew Luton-Dublin (Ryan Air) and then Dublin-Heathrow-Hong Kong (BA?). It saved him at least a hundred pounds over the direct Heathrow-Hong Kong route. I believe Mrs Dirtycash would not need a visa for a change at Dublin. On the other hand, visa hassles might matter less than changing flights with young children.

[tebee]

Even if Mr Dirtycash has duel nationality, surly Mrs Dirtycash could apply for a free fast track EU route visa for Eire as a member of her daughters family, if the daughter only has UK nationality at the moment.

[Richard W]

Even if Mr Dirtycash has duel nationality, surly Mrs Dirtycash could apply for a free fast track EU route visa for Eire as a member of her daughters family, if the daughter only has UK nationality at the moment.

Miss Dirtycash is a British-Irish-Thai trial national. Please give a reference for this fast-track concept if you still think it relevant. Mrs Dirtycash does not count as a family member or extended family member of Miss Dirtycash within the non-reciprocal usages of the term.

[tebee]

My understanding of dual citizenship is that although someone may be entitled to it, they are not considered a citizen of the second or subsequent country until they do something about claiming it.

Mrs Dirtycash is presumably the mother of Miss Dirtycash and parents are considered family members under Directive 2004/38/EC - it says • ascendants • your dependent direct relatives in the ascending line (i.e.parents, grand-parents …) and those of your spouse or registered partner.

So therefore, as Mrs Dirtycash is accompanying Miss Dirtycash, who is a third country national in Eire, she would be entitled to a visa under Directive 2004/38/EC which would be free.

[Richard W]

My understanding of dual citizenship is that although someone may be entitled to it, they are not considered a citizen of the second or subsequent country until they do something about claiming it.

If a country wants to consider one of its citizens a citizen, it will, regardless of whether the citizen has asserted his citizenship. HMG will cheerfully use an unasserted citizenship to deprive someone of British citizenship.

Mrs Dirtycash is presumably the mother of Miss Dirtycash and parents are considered family members under Directive 2004/38/EC - it says ascendants your dependent direct relatives in the ascending line (i.e.parents, grand-parents ) and those of your spouse or registered partner.

So therefore, as Mrs Dirtycash is accompanying Miss Dirtycash, who is a third country national in Eire, she would be entitled to a visa under Directive 2004/38/EC which would be free.

I very much doubt that Mrs Dirtycash is a dependant of Miss Dirtycash.

[tebee]

My understanding of dual citizenship is that although someone may be entitled to it, they are not considered a citizen of the second or subsequent country until they do something about claiming it.

If a country wants to consider one of its citizens a citizen, it will, regardless of whether the citizen has asserted his citizenship. HMG will cheerfully use an unasserted citizenship to deprive someone of British citizenship.

Mrs Dirtycash is presumably the mother of Miss Dirtycash and parents are considered family members under Directive 2004/38/EC - it says ascendants your dependent direct relatives in the ascending line (i.e.parents, grand-parents ) and those of your spouse or registered partner.

So therefore, as Mrs Dirtycash is accompanying Miss Dirtycash, who is a third country national in Eire, she would be entitled to a visa under Directive 2004/38/EC which would be free.

I very much doubt that Mrs Dirtycash is a dependant of Miss Dirtycash.

For your first point we are talking about the Irish government here , not HMG and we are talking about getting a free visa as opposed to having to pay for one - is any government going to bother to to raise questionable legal arguments over such a small matter?

It would also depend on things we don't know, it quite a complicated task to work out if you are entitled - I checked if I am because of my of my Irish born grandmother ( probably yes) http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/irish_citizenship/irish_citizenship_through_birth_or_descent.html

On you second point, I too doubt she is a dependant of Miss Dirtycash, but it's competently irrelevant here, she is a family member under Directive 2004/38/EC, the dependency test only applies to "Other family members such as siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles and other relatives".

[7by7]

My understanding of dual citizenship is that although someone may be entitled to it, they are not considered a citizen of the second or subsequent country until they do something about claiming it.......

Dirtycash has done something about claiming it.

He used his Irish citizenship to obtain UK residence for Mrs. Dirthycash under the EEA regulations; before the rule change which now means this is not possible for dual nationals.

[tebee]

That's why I was suggesting using his daughter as the third country national - it might be better not to get her registered as an Irish national.

[Richard W]

On you second point, I too doubt she is a dependant of Miss Dirtycash, but it's competently irrelevant here, she is a family member under Directive 2004/38/EC, the dependency test only applies to "Other family members such as siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles and other relatives".

The relevant family member definition is Article 2© and reads, "the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b)". Note the word 'dependent'.

[dirtycash]

Ok. Looks like i will have to open another thread on obtaining irish naturalisation for my wife . And No cheap flights for her im afraid. Thanks

[Richard W]

Mrs Dirtycash should be able get a visa for the republic, and she might even get it for free. Her flight might not be so cheap, but with 3 of you a cheap flight should be worth taking even though you need a visa.

[Jay Sata]

Mrs Dirtycash should be able get a visa for the republic, and she might even get it for free. Her flight might not be so cheap, but with 3 of you a cheap flight should be worth taking even though you need a visa.

This is a very interesting discussion.

As she qualifies for a free Irish visa why does INIS ask for a visa? Why not make her visa exempt?

Given the fact that Mr Dirtycash has dual UK/Irish citizenship (as does anyone born in the six counties) why does he need a visa for his wife to transit

via Dublin?

Surely she has EU rights?

[Richard W]

Mrs Dirtycash should be able get a visa for the republic, and she might even get it for free. Her flight might not be so cheap, but with 3 of you a cheap flight should be worth taking even though you need a visa.

This is a very interesting discussion.

As she qualifies for a free Irish visa why does INIS ask for a visa? Why not make her visa exempt?

Given the fact that Mr Dirtycash has dual UK/Irish citizenship (as does anyone born in the six counties) why does he need a visa for his wife to transit

via Dublin?

Surely she has EU rights?

Having read Advocate General Szpunar's opinion for Sean Ambrose McCarthy and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, I see that it can be argued that she has them with respect to neither the UK nor Ireland. However, the UK treats her as though she had them with respect to the UK.

It is not actually true that everyone born in Northern Ireland has dual UK/Irish citizenship. Firstly, the rights conferred by birth there are now restricted to those with a parent 'vaguely settled' (my term) there, where 'vaguely settled' has slightly different meanings for British and Irish citizenship. Secondly, these rights are to be British and to be entitled to have Irish citizenship. Thirdly, Irish citizenship is only acquired automatically at birth if a parent is an Irish citizen born on the island of Ireland. I believe that in Northern Ireland, most people's Irish citizenship derives from an ancestor being born on the island before 6 December 1922. I may have overlooked a campaign of mass renunciation of Irish citizenship.

Having and being entitled to Irish citizenship are two different statuses. I know people entitled to Irish citizenship doing work they would not be allowed to do if they actually had Irish citizenship.

[Jay Sata]

Bottom line is she does not need a visa as INIS have already told me .

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 75/14

Luxembourg, 20 May 2014

Advocate General's Opinion in Case C-202/13

Sean Ambrose McCarthy and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department

According to Advocate General Szpunar, a Member State may not make a third-country national's right of entry subject to the prior obtaining of a visa, when he already holds a 'Residence card of a family member of a Union citizen' issued by another Member State

Authorising a Member State to put such a precautionary measure of general application into effect would be tantamount to permitting it to circumvent the right to freedom of movement and would be contrary to the principle of mutual recognition

An EU directive [1] provides that possession of a valid residence card exempts third-country nationals who are members of the family of an EU citizen, from having to obtain an entry visa. Nevertheless, Member States may adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred by this directive in the case of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience. Any such measure must be proportionate and subject to the procedural safeguards provided.

Mr Sean Ambrose McCarthy has dual British and Irish nationality. He is married to a Colombian national with whom he has a daughter. Since 2010 the family has lived in Spain, where they own a house. Mr and Ms McCarthy also own a house in the United Kingdom, to which they regularly travel. Ms Helena Patricia McCarthy is the holder of an EU family member's residence card ('residence card') issued by the Spanish authorities. Under the UK provisions on immigration, in order to be able to travel to the United Kingdom, holders of those cards must apply for an entry permit ('the EEA family permit'), valid for six months. This family permit may be renewed, provided that the holder personally attends a United Kingdom diplomatic mission abroad and fills in a form containing details of the applicant's finances and employment.

In 2012, taking the view that those provisions of national law prejudice their rights to freedom of movement, the McCarthy family brought proceedings before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom). That court has asked the Court of Justice whether, in the light of the Directive and of Protocol No 20 (the Frontiers Protocol), [2] third-country nationals may, generally, be obliged to obtain a visa in order to be allowed to enter the territory of the United Kingdom when they already have a residence card.

In today's Opinion, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar first examines whether the directive is applicable to the McCarthy family's situation. Here he proposes a broad interpretation of the directive. In his view, the directive must apply to the case in which an EU citizen, after exercising his right of freedom of movement and genuinely residing in another Member State, decides to travel, with the members of his family possessing the nationality of a third country, to the Member State of he is a national. Such an interpretation would seem justified not only in the light of the role played by citizenship as EU law currently stands, but also in the light of the relevant case-law of the Court. [3]

If the Court were not to follow his first proposal, the Advocate General proposes that Directive 2004/38 should apply, at the very least, to EU citizens and to third-country national family members genuinely exercising their freedom of movement by residing in another Member State while simultaneously making short trips to the Member State of which the citizens concerned are nationals. This second proposal relates exclusively to the right of entry and of short-term residence.

Next, the Advocate General considers whether, and if so on what conditions, the directive allows a Member State, in order to cope with a 'systemic abuse of rights' when residence cards are issued, to require the prior issue of an entry visa, when that general, precautionary obligation does not depend on the previous finding of an abuse of rights in a specific case.

Mr Szpunar observes here that a measure of general application, such as that laid down by the UK, would deprive the procedural guarantees provided for by the directive of their substance. To his mind, the systematic suspension of those rights does not allow either the national court or this Court to ascertain whether the conditions that led the UK authorities to disregard that right for the McCarthy family have in fact been met.

The Advocate General considers that the evidence adduced by the United Kingdom cannot be regarded as specific evidence linked to the individual conduct of the McCarthy family. In this connection, he notes that that family's conduct does not constitute an abuse of rights within the meaning of EU law. He observes too that a general presumption of fraud is not sufficient to justify a measure that compromises the objectives of the TFEU. The assessment of abusive conduct is in principle a matter for the national courts, but their assessment must not in any circumstances jeopardise the uniformity and effectiveness of EU law.

As regards the British family permit, the Advocate General considers that it amounts quite simply to an obligation to have a visa, which is contrary not only to the directive but also to the objectives and the very system of that directive. In consequence, provided that the third-country national family member of the EU citizen satisfies the conditions that allow him to benefit from the right of freedom of movement, the corresponding residence card must be accepted by the Member States.

According to Mr Szpunar, authorising a Member State to disregard the residence card issued by another Member State would be contrary to the principle of mutual recognition. The administrative and judicial authorities of a Member State are bound to accept certificates and analogous documents relative to personal status issued by the competent authorities of the other Member States, unless their accuracy is seriously shaken by concrete evidence relating to the individual case in question. Moreover, to accept the implementation of measures of general application laid down by the United Kingdom would be tantamount to allowing that Member State to circumvent the right of freedom of movement, with the result that other Member States could also adopt such measures and unilaterally suspend the application of the directive.

Mr Szpunar concludes therefrom that the directive does not entitle a Member State to adopt a measure of general application such as that at issue in this case (that is to say, a measure refusing family members of an EU citizen who hold valid residence cards issued by another Member State exemption from the obligation to obtain a visa), when that measure is precautionary and is not based on a prior finding of an abuse of rights in a specific case.

Lastly, as regards the Frontiers Protocol, the Advocate General notes that it is not intended to confer special privileges on the United Kingdom, but was adopted in order to take account of that Member State's desire to maintain border controls with most Member States and also the existing 'Common Travel Area' between the UK and Ireland. Border controls are intended, in particular, to determine whether the persons concerned have the right to enter the United Kingdom. However, that determination does not entitle the UK to refuse unilaterally to allow EU citizens and members of their families with a residence card to enter its territory, by requiring generally that they obtain and present at its borders an additional document for which EU law makes no provision.

NOTE: The Advocate General's Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court's decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The full text of the Opinion is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.

Press contact: Christopher Fretwell (+352) 4303 3355

Pictures of the delivery of the Opinion are available from "Europe by Satellite" (+32) 2 2964106

[1] Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, 'the Directive').

[2] Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to the United Kingdom and to Ireland.

[3] In particular, Cases C-291/05 Eind and Case C-456/12, O, see Press Release CP n° 32/14).

[Jay Sata]

For those who cannot be bothered to wade through the text above here is the synopsis,

Lastly, as regards the Frontiers Protocol, the Advocate General notes that it is not intended to confer special privileges on the United Kingdom, but was adopted in order to take account of that Member State's desire to maintain border controls with most Member States and also the existing 'Common Travel Area' between the UK and Ireland. Border controls are intended, in particular, to determine whether the persons concerned have the right to enter the United Kingdom. However, that determination does not entitle the UK to refuse unilaterally to allow EU citizens and members of their families with a residence card to enter its territory, by requiring generally that they obtain and present at its borders an additional document for which EU law makes no provision.

In other words...no need for a visa for travel to and from Belfast to Dublin airport.

Hence my reply from INIS which states the same.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Jay Sata

[Richard W]

However, that determination does not entitle the UK to refuse unilaterally to allow EU citizens and members of their families with a residence card to enter its territory, by requiring generally that they obtain and present at its borders an additional document for which EU law makes no provision.

In other words...no need for a visa for travel to and from Belfast to Dublin airport.

Hence my reply from INIS which states the same.

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Mrs Dirtycash possesses a valid residence card. So far as we are aware, she does not. We have already established that if she had a residence card, she would have no problem. Irish regulations are already compliant with that part of EU law.

What Mrs Dirtycash has is a permanent residence card, issued under Article 20, not Article 10, of 2004/38/EC. If Ireland were part of the Schengen area, it would suffice, with one caveat. The caveat is that, as far as we can tell, Mrs Dirtycash has it by virtue of the grandfathered, earlier British misinterpretation of the EU law, so in theory even a Schengen state could legitimately refuse to accept it. As it is, Irish visa regulations do not accept foreign permanent residence cards issued under Article 20, so the issue does not arise.

Mrs Dirtycash does appear to be eligible for an Article 10 residence card under the British EEA regulations, but price, risk of refusal, and government tardiness do not make it an attractive proposition.

While Advocate General Szpunar finds it perverse that Mrs Dirtycash should be treated as the wife of an Irish citizen when travelling to Ireland rather than as the wife of a British citizen, I don't believe he established that the law is not an ass in this regard. A test case is awaited.

I must admit that the idea that EEA spouses must establish non-citizenship of the host state for their non-EEA spouses to get rights under 2004/38/EC is horrifying. I feel it should be for the (potential) host state to establish citizenship. I am not aware of any cases where the process followed has not actually been as I feel it should be.

[dirtycash]

Yes i got that thankyou. Im not bothered about her travelling to irish republic via road as she has been to dublin countless times without a problem. The original question is about flying from dublin to bangkok.

[7by7]

Bottom line is she does not need a visa as INIS have already told me ............

And as was said long before you joined the topic!

Provided, as RichardW points out, she has the right type of UK residence card.

The difficulty may be persuading her airline when she tries to board in Bangkok for her flight to Dublin of this!

Obtaining an Irish visa will negate any possible difficulties she may have in doing that.

[Richard W]

Im not bothered about her travelling to irish republic via road as she has been to dublin countless times without a problem.

Has the Garda ever checked her papers? If so, what did she show them that satisfied them?

[Jay Sata]

Im not bothered about her travelling to irish republic via road as she has been to dublin countless times without a problem.

Has the Garda ever checked her papers? If so, what did she show them that satisfied them?

Good point. Ignoring some of the suggestions on here from long time forum experts who have never been to the Republic of Eire there appears to be a legal mess here that needs to be cleared up.

As we all know there are no border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

The politics transcend red tape hence Mrs Dirtycash travelling two hours down the road to Dublin from Belfast with no one stopping her or indeed trying to deport her back to the north! The logistics would be interesting.

A police car maybe or cheaper still a taxi?

I doubt she would be stopped departing Eire and with an exit stamp I suspect she could return via Dublin. In fact the worst penalty the airline would face is deporting her from Dublin to Belfast which is a two hour taxi ride away! Which is where she lives! Would they want to pay for a taxi? I doubt it. Would the Garda put her on a flight to England which they would have to pay for? Of course not.

The whole scenario would be played out on Irish TV and radio to illustrate the crazy place we all find ourselves in this so called EU.

Meanwhile the Dover Calais route is porous to the point of being a national disaster and the Mayor of Calais is telling a House of Commons committee that UK immigration controls are a joke.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

<snip>

In fact the worst penalty the airline would face is deporting her from Dublin to Belfast which is a two hour taxi ride away! Which is where she lives!.........

Wrong.

Under international agreements the maximum penalty all airlines face if they carry a passenger who they know does not have the required entry clearance for their destination is a USD10,000 fine and the cost of returning the passenger to their departure point.

A moot point, as Mrs Dirtycash will almost certainly be admitted into the Republic to continue her journey north; as has been said many times.

Assuming she gets that far!

The problem is whether her airline check in at Bangkok are fully up to speed with the EU directives or not; whether they will let her board or not.

If they have doubts, they may refuse to carry her to avoid the possibility of the above mentioned penalty; I'm sure that their conditions of carriage contain a clause allowing them to do this.

If they do refuse her, then at best this will mean a long argument with them to prove she can enter the Republic; at worst it will mean her needing to find another airline and argue the case with, and seek compensation from, her original airline once back home.

Instead of making snide remarks about your knowledge of Irish immigration matters and what you perceive as lack of same by others, why don't you, a person who claims to be a vastly experienced world traveller, address that issue?

[bobrussell]

I don't see anyone arguing that there will be a problem at Dublin either leaving or on return. The talk of EU directives etc whilst interesting is irrelevant to the real concerns of 'long time forum experts'.

The risk the OP is taking is that the airline may not be as knowledgeable and might delay or refuse boarding on the return trip. It may be smooth sailing perhaps very likely it would be.

What is there to stop an airline refusing to board a passenger if they have doubts over the need for a visa?

[Richard W]

A moot point, as Mrs Dirtycash will almost certainly be admitted into the Republic to continue her journey north; as has been said many times.

The problem is whether her airline check in at Bangkok are fully up to speed with the EU directives or not; whether they will let her board or not.

I thought you, 7by7, had pointed out that Mrs Dirtycash does not appear to have any clear right to enter the Republic without a visa. She could only do it by Dirtycash successfully concealing his Irish nationality, or possibly appealing to Surinder Singh to make his Irishness irrelevant. You yourself doubted the applicability of Surinder Singh, for it is not at all clear that Dirtycash has been exercising treaty rights in the UK that he actually holds. Edited October 31, 2014 by Richard W

[7by7]

A good point, Richard, and I did say in a previous post that her entry to the republic without an Irish visa was dependent upon her having the right type of UK residence card; sorry I didn't make that clear in my last one.

As has been said many times, obtaining an Irish visa may not be necessary, but doing so would avoid any possible problems when checking in at Bangkok and on arrival at Dublin if her UK residency card does not meet the requirements for entry to the Republic.

[7by7]

What is there to stop an airline refusing to board a passenger if they have doubts over the need for a visa?

Nothing; their conditions of carriage allow them to do so.

For example, from those of Aer Lingus

Article 7 - Refusal and Limitation of Carriage

7.1 RIGHT TO REFUSE CARRIAGE

In the reasonable exercise of our discretion, we may refuse to carry you or your Baggage if we have notified you in writing that we would not at any time after the date of such notice carry you on our flights. We may also refuse to carry you or your Baggage if one or more of the following have occurred or we reasonably believe may occur:

7.1.8

you do not appear to have valid travel documents..........

(My emphasis)