THE BOTTOM LINE
- High Burden of Proof: Companies and individuals must understand that claiming EU-derived residency rights through an adult family member requires concrete, objective evidence of an exceptional dependency. Vague assertions or simple family statements are insufficient.
- Evidence is Non-Negotiable: The immigration authorities and courts will not grant residency based on unsubstantiated claims of medical need or family ties. The responsibility to provide proof, such as official documents and expert reports, lies squarely with the applicant from the outset.
- Procedural Shortcuts are Risky: Relying on procedural arguments, such as the right to a hearing, will fail if the underlying case is manifestly unfounded. A strong, evidence-based application is the only path to success.
THE DETAILS
In a recent decision, the District Court of The Hague reinforced the strict requirements for non-EU nationals seeking residency based on their relationship with an adult EU citizen. The case involved a Surinamese national who applied for a residence document in the Netherlands, claiming he had a derived right of residence under EU law (Article 20 TFEU) through his alleged sister, a Dutch national. This right, established in the European Court of Justice’s K.A. judgment, is designed to prevent situations where an EU citizen would effectively be forced to leave the EU territory because a dependent non-EU family member cannot legally reside with them. The Dutch immigration authorities rejected the application, prompting the appeal.
The court’s decision hinged on a critical failure by the applicant: a complete lack of evidence. The court found that the applicant had not proven the fundamental aspects of his case. First, he failed to provide official documentation to legally establish the claimed sibling relationship. Second, and more crucially, he did not submit any proof of the exceptional dependency relationship required by the K.A. precedent. Claims that his sister required his care and attention were not supported by any medical, financial, or social work documentation, despite the applicant stating such reports were pending. The court made it clear that the legal threshold for this type of residency is high and cannot be met with personal declarations alone.
From a procedural standpoint, the court also sided with the government’s decision to skip a formal hearing during the administrative objection phase. Under Dutch law, a hearing can be waived if an objection is manifestly unfounded. The court agreed with this assessment, noting that the applicant had failed to provide any new information or evidence to challenge the initial rejection, instead simply repeating his unsupported claims. This ruling underscores a vital message for legal and business leaders: the immigration process is evidence-driven, and failing to build a robust, documented case from the start will likely lead to a swift and final rejection.
SOURCE
Rechtbank Den Haag
