SH and AJ v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

admin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 392
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:27 Jun 2022
Judge:Ferriter C.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Discrimination (Indirect), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Syria, Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/80e83a63-c91b-47e7-a90d-99f4a672064e/2022_IEHC_392.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: SH was a Syrian national whose wife and three children resided in Syria. SH applied for international protection in Ireland in February 2020. There were delays in processing his case, including due to COVID-19. While awaiting an interview, one of SH’s sons turned 18. SH was granted refugee status in June 2021 and subsequently made a family reunification application … Read More

Principles:The delays experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic were exceptional and not unreasonable delays for processing an international protection application. The scope of the definition of family members eligible for family reunification under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 was a matter of policy choice by the legislature and not in breach of EU law, nor was it repugnant to the Constitution or the ECHR. Failure to inform a beneficiary of international protection of their right to family reunification promptly and in a language they can likely understand is in violation of Article 22 of the Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC
Go Back

M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor

admin


M.Y. v the International Protection Appeals Tribunal & anor
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2022] IEHC 345
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:13 May 2022
Judge:Ferriter J.
Category:International protection, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Burden of Proof, Country of Origin, Deportation Order, Persecution, Refugee (Convention)
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/d67b3aa8-41b1-495e-bdf7-8a8f182e1cec/0473cf81-9c10-40c0-b260-8c64e64cd1bd/2022_IEHC_345.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicant was a member of the Berber Amazigh people, an ethnic minority in Algeria and supported the ideals of the Berber separatist MAK movement. He travelled to the UK on a short-term visa in 2013 and remained there after its expiry. In 2018, he travelled to Ireland and applied for international protection. The IPO recommended that he not … Read More

Principles:When refusing an application under section 28(6) of the International Protection Act 2015, the core elements of the provision should be assessed. Albeit obiter, Ferriter J stated that the UK Supreme Court’s ruling in HJ (Iran) can be applied to Convention grounds other than those that relate to sexual orientation and HJ (Iran) should be applied carefully to the facts of the case when remitted for fresh consideration.
Go Back

Landsberg and Breetzke v Road Safety Authority, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, and the Attorney General Ireland

adminLeave a Comment


Landsberg and Breetzke v the Road Safety Authority and others
Respondent/Defendant:Road Safety Authority, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Ireland and the Attorney General .
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 748
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:05 Nov 2021
Judge:Heslin M
Category:International protection
Keywords:Asylum, Employment, Reception Conditions, Usual Residence
Country of Origin:South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/95f13571-e20a-499b-8914-a7bbe1af4081/2021_IEHC_748.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were two South African nationals who had applied for international protection in Ireland. They applied to the National Driving Licence Service (NDLS) to exchange their South African driving licences for Irish driving licences. The applicants averred that they required driving licences to access the labour market and bring their child to school. Regulation 12 of the Road … Read More

Principles:Normal residence for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Licencing of Drivers) Regulations 2006 (SI No. 537/2006), as amended, can be understood to include the residency of international protection applicants in the State.
Go Back

ASA v the Minister for Justice

admin


ASA v the Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 275
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Apr 2021
Judge:Burns T.
Category:International protection
Keywords:Carltona Principle, Permission to Remain, Refoulement (Non-)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d9198a1f-e94f-4dc6-924a-ee691a423831/2021_IEHC_276.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a Nigerian national, applied for international protection in Ireland in 2018. It was recommended that he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection status, and also not be granted permission to remain in the State under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the manner in which s. … Read More

Principles:The role of an International Protection Officer in taking a decision on permission to remain under section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 is in line with the Carltona principle and does not conflict with their duties in taking a decision on refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
Go Back

AB v Road Safety Authority

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Road Safety Authority
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2021] IEHC 217
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Mar 2021
Judge:Creedon E
Category:International protection, Residence
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Discrimination (Indirect), Residence Document, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:India
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a6f51761-a591-46b8-8d2c-299e8fb6f7df/2021_IEHC_217.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: AB applied for international protection in Ireland in 2015. AB lived in Munster and worked in Co. Dublin. AB was unable to move to Dublin due to a lack of direct provision accommodation in that area. AB held a Temporary Residence Certificate (TRC) under s. 16(1) of the International Protection Act 2015, which allowed her to remain in the … Read More

Principles:A person who is present in the State as an applicant for international protection is not “normally resident” in the State for the purposes of an application for a learner driver’s permit. The refusal of the permit on this basis did not constitute discrimination on grounds of race.
Go Back

T.P. v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


T.P. v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2021] IECA 50
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:22 Feb 2021
Judge:Faherty J.
Category:International protection, Residence
Keywords:Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Final Decision, Leave to Remain
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/c7b41c59-f483-4f5b-a629-77963774b876/0a282be6-4bdd-4b8a-a990-e0dac15eae1a/2021_IECA_50%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf

Facts: The appellant, a Nigerian national, arrived in Ireland in February 2013. He applied for international protection, but this application was unsuccessful. In October 2016, the appellant applied for leave to remain pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. He had been in a relationship with his partner, a Zimbabwean national, since 2013. His partner’s application … Read More

Principles:The threshold for substantial grounds for judicial review of a refusal of an application for leave to remain was met where the Minister was presented with a person’s de facto family situation and the prospect that their de facto family members were likely to be granted leave to remain were not considered in the requisite weighing exercise undertaken when deciding to issue a deportation order.
Go Back