You are here: Home >> Case Studies >>Unemployment>> Jobseekers Allowance - Formerly Unemployment Assistance

Jobseekers Allowance (Habitual Residence) - Case 4

Question At Issue:

Whether the appellant’s claim for jobseeker’s allowance should be disallowed on the grounds that he was not habitually resident in the State.

Background:

The appellant, who is a foreign national, claimed jobseeker’s allowance having worked for various periods following his arrival in Ireland 5 years ago. His claim was disallowed as he was not regarded as being habitually resident in the State.

Oral Hearing:

The appellant attended alone. The services of an interpreter were provided. The appellant stated that he arrived in Ireland 5 years ago and worked for a number of employers and was also self-employed. Documentary evidence of his employment record was produced. He lived off savings in between periods of work. He submitted a copy of a lease of a house which he shared with three other men from his home country. He also submitted financial statements indicating transactions both in Ireland and in his home country. He said he had returned to his homeland for short visits to see his family on a number of occasions and his financial statements confirmed that.

As regards his marital situation, he indicated that he was married but had not lived with his wife for some years before coming to Ireland. He had no contact with his wife and regarded himself as separated although no legal separation had taken place. His wife and two children lived in his home country. She had a small business there and the family had no plans to join him in Ireland. He had sent money home to her when he had been working and he still regularly telephoned his children. He had hoped that the money he earned in Ireland would help to sort out his marriage difficulties.

Consideration of the Appeals Officer:

The Appeals Officer was satisfied that the appellant had come to Ireland in order to work and had been successful for the most part in that regard. He was also satisfied that he was making continuing efforts to remain in the workforce. The evidence presented in relation to his marriage, however, appeared to be somewhat confusing. The appellant had stated that he had not lived with his wife for some years before coming to Ireland and was separated from her yet he supported her and his children financially when he had been working and also had made regular visits home to see them. It was the view of the Appeals Officer that, in the circumstances of the case, the marriage tie had not been broken and that the separation referred to was of a geographical nature only. It was clear that the appellant had come to Ireland to work and to support his family who remained in his home country. While that situation continued, it cannot be said that his centre of interest had changed from his home country to Ireland. Consequently, he failed to meet the requirement of being habitually resident in the State.

Outcome:

Appeal disallowed.

End of Document