POT v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2008] IEHC 361
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Nov 2008
Judge:Hedigan J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Family Reunification, Refugee, Refugee Law
Country of Origin:Ghana
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Applicant was a national of Ghana and a declared refugee. Entitled pursuant to section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 to family reunification, in 2003 he applied to the Minister for visas for his wife and four children. The Minister referred to applications to the Refugee Applications Commissioner, who drew to the Minister’s attention certain discrepancies between the Applicant’s initial application for refugee status and his applications for visas for the members of his immediate family. The Minister notified the Applicant that he proposed to revoke his refugee status. The Applicant was able to persuade the Minister that the discrepancies could be explained, and his refugee status was not revoked. In August 2007, the Minister refused the Applicant’s applications for visas on the grounds, inter alia, that the documents submitted with the applications were invalid and that he had not made mention of one of his children during the course of his application for refugee status. The Applicant obtained the leave of the High Court to challenge the Ministerial decision by way of judicial review on the grounds that, as a matter of fair procedures, the Minister ought to have raised with him any concerns in relation to the applications to give him the opportunity to explain any issues arising with respect to documents or perceived discrepancies.

In its judgment on the Applicant’s substantive application, the High Court (Hedigan J.) stated that the fact that the Applicant was permitted to reapply for the visas did not provide an answer to his difficulties: his application had been outstanding for four years and if another application were to be made, his children would likely have reached 18 years of age before it was determined. The Court held that the Minister ought to have notified the Applicant that he doubted the validity of the documents and offered him a chance to comment. The Court took pains to emphasise that the obligation of communication between the Minister and an applicant applied only in the unique and special situation where the Minister is unsatisfied as to the validity of documentation submitted in support of an application for family reunification and that it impacted in no way on the obligations of decision-makers in the statutory asylum process who are, in general under no obligation to enter into a debate or correspondence with an applicant. The decision of the Minister was quashed and remitted for reconsideration.


The Minister ought to have notified the Applicant that he doubted the validity of the documents submitted in support of his application for family reunification. The Applicant should have been offered a chance to comment.

Go Back

Leave a Reply