Michael X and Emma Y and others v Minister for Social Protection and others- Welfare, Immigration and Citizenship

Migration permission within a State may impact upon many key areas of life. From entitlement to work or not, entitlement to housing and entitlement to social welfare. States have significant, but perhaps not unlimited latitude in determining how lawful residency, or lack thereof, impacts on access to employment, social assistance and social security entitlement. Along with other social assistance payments, since 2004 child benefit has been subject to the habitual residence condition, and since 2009 the right to reside requirement. This article examines the cases of Michael X and Emma Y which raised novel arguments on legislative entitlement to child benefit. After introducing the facts and grounds of challenge, I will explain legislative entitlement to child benefit. In Section B, I outline the competing interpretations, between the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the nature of child benefit and constitutional equality. In Section C, I explain how the courts determined arguments on Zambrano rights, as well as refugee rights under international law and European Union (EU) law. In Section D, I describe the approach of the courts towards the arguments on European Convention on Human Rights grounds. In Section E, I present my analysis of the Supreme Court decision.