LAW lords have ruled against man who claimed he had come to East Lancashire as a dependent of one of his cousins from Pakistan.

Lawyers representing Adnan Safdar had won a judicial review after he insisted he had come to the UK in August 2014 to study and was supported by Zahoor Ahmed.

But Mr Justice David Keane said Mr Safdar, who had settled in Nelson and later moved to Ireland for work, had not proved he was reliant on Mr Ahmed for his wellbeing.

His application for a residence card, as a permitted family member exercising free movement rights within the European Union, has been refused.

Mr Safdar had previously made an official approach, through a firm called IK Immigration Consultants in April 2015, the High Court was told, where he submitted both his and his mother's birth certificates, and documents establishing Mr Ahmed was his cousin.

He also put forward Mr Ahmed's passport, as proof he was a European Union citizen, along with pay slips and a tax clearance certificate, to establish that he could move freely through EU countries, as well as papers showing the pair were living in the same rented accommodation, firstly in Fulham Street, Nelson, and then nearby MacLeod Street.

This application was later rejected by the Immigration and Naturalisation Service, with officials asking for proof Mr Safdar was dependent on Mr Ahmed, prior to him coming to the UK, or had been a member of his household.

Further correspondence was sent by Mr Safdar, as part of the review process, including a student ID card from the Metro College of Management Services in Stockport, with students fees said to be paid by a Mr Z Ahmed, of Fulham Street.

He also told how Mr Ahmed's father had supported Mr Safdar's family after the death of his own father in 1998.

But the court also heard that Mr Ahmed was not a party to Mr Safdar's residence card challenge and had provided no statement of his own.

Agreeing with the Minister for Justice and Equality in Ireland and the Attorney General, Mr Justice Keane said: "The onus was on Mr Safdar to satisfy the minister by cogent evidence that was in part documented and could be tested either that the level of material support he received from Mr Ahmed, its duration, and the impact upon his personal financial circumstances combined together to meet the material definition of dependency or that he had lived for some time under the roof of a household that could be said to be that of Mr Ahmed in the UK.

"The minister concluded that Mr Safdar had failed to do so."

The court heard that an application, granting Mr Safdar leave to remain in the UK, was still outstanding, at the time of the residence card ruling.