Wen Wei & Ting Ting v Minister for Justice & anor

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána
Court/s:Court of Appeal, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2024
Judge:Woulfe, S., Hogan, G., O’Donnell
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Border control, Entry (Refusal of), Non-EU National, Refusal of leave to land, Student, Visa
Country of Origin:Malaysia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d56fd777-f75b-4b75-a57c-14e76b9e95c0/[2024]_IESC__58_Woulfe%20J.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellants were two Malaysian nationals who sought permission to land and enter the State at Cork Airport in December 2020 in order to start an English language course in January 2021. They were refused permission to land because the course was to be conducted online and not in person. This decision was made at the time of the … Read More

Principles:The reference to public policy in the refusal of leave to land ground under section 4(3)(j), Immigration Act 2004 should be understood as distinct from national security and as granting wide discretion to the Minister.
Go Back

Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Sangeeta Rana, Lehrasib Ali
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2024] IESC 46
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:18 Oct 2024
Judge:O’Malley, I., Dunne, E, Hogan, G., Collins, M., Donnelly A.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Good character, Regularisation, Residence Permit, Student, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:India, Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c4be3d7-0c16-4132-bbcc-d5aa817f2816/2024_IESC_46.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: Ms Rana and Mr Ali were in Ireland on student permissions. Upon their expiration, they each entered into what were later held to be marriages of convenience with EU citizens. They both held residence permissions in the State as spouses of EU citizens. Their permissions were both respectively revoked. Ms. Rana’s was revoked for entering into a marriage of … Read More

Principles:When assessing applications under the Special Scheme for Students and the good character and conduct criteria, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to reassess a question of gravity where a previous permission had been revoked for reasons relating to a marriage of convenience. In giving reasons, it is sufficient for a decision-maker to state that they have considered all the material before them, unless there is some evidence-based reasons for thinking otherwise.
Go Back

A.Z. & ors v the Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:A.Z., M.Z. and C.Z. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend M.Z.)
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2024] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:25 Jul 2024
Judge:Woulfe, S. Dunne, E. Hogan, G. Collins, M. Donnelly, A.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Best interests of the child, Child, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, Family (Nuclear), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Illegal Stay, Return
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5e689789-56c6-481a-b63b-b74248a1d14b/2024_IESC_35_(Woulfe%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:In Re JJ [2020] IESC 1, Oguekwe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IESC 25, [2008]

Facts: A.Z. was an Albanian national who arrived to Ireland irregularly in 1995 and worked without a work permit for a number of years using an alias. He met M.Z., an Irish citizen, in 2005, and they had a child, C.Z., in 2007. A.Z. is the primary caregiver for his son, C.Z., who has a number of additional needs relating … Read More

Principles:Article 42A.1 of the Irish Constitution requires that the Minister have regard to the child’s best interests as a primary consideration in the context of a parent’s deportation order and must therefore engage with the child’s constitutional rights. Thus, in the context of the proportionality exercise conducted when deciding deportation cases, the Minister must give primary consideration to a child’s best interests when weighing the various relevant factors.
Go Back

E.M. v The Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2024
Judge:Dunne, E.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Deportation, Deportation Order, Employee, Employment, Marriage of Convenience
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2bd0e600-cc08-45e4-b2cc-a8e58bf44ca4/2024_IESC_3.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:MAH v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 302, ANA v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 589, Huang v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 630, and Talukder v Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 835. P.N.S. v. Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 11

Facts: E.M., a Pakistani national, arrived in Ireland in 2011 and applied for asylum. This application was refused. In 2012, he was issued with a deportation order. That same year, the appellant married an EU national resident in Ireland and he was granted a residence permission on this basis. When seeking to renew this permission in 2017, the Minister refused … Read More

Principles:In the process of considering a whether to issue a deportation order, the Minister must consider a person’s employment prospects separately to whether or not the individual has a permission to reside in the State. A refusal to grant relief in the context of asylum and immigration cases should be used sparingly and with caution.
Go Back

Odum & ors v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2)

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:14 Nov 2023
Judge:O’Donnell, D.; Charleton P.; Baker M.; Woulfe S.; Hogan G.; Murray B.; Collins M.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Child, Deportation, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Illegal Stay, Regularisation
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/6865a1e3-8b82-44cf-83f7-5e2b97e6b881/6b637c5d-275f-4e21-9aff-0dac512ebd94/2023_IESC_26.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. Odum, a Nigerian national, arrived to Ireland irregularly in November 2007. He married EA, also a Nigerian national in December 2007, however, the marriage was not registered and therefore was not considered lawful. They went on to have three children. The couple separated in 2014. In that same year, Mr. Odum applied for residency, but this application refused … Read More

Principles:There are a number of circumstances in which a non-citizen who can establish a sufficient connection to the State is the same as a citizen, and where, therefore, the Article 40.1 guarantee of equality as human persons before the law, entitles them to rely on the same rights as a citizen would have. Non-citizen children, may in this regard, be entitled to the rights of the care and company of their parent. However, where the parent is in a precarious situation in the State, exceptional circumstances would be necessary to invalidate a deportation order.
Go Back

A, B and C v Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade

EMNireland


A, B and C v Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Respondent/Defendant: Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:09 May 2023
Judge: Murray B., Dunne E., Charleton P., Woulfe S., Hogan, G.
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Child, Citizenship
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d2f91f33-75a6-4b89-b779-e87c317192e1/2023_IESC_10_(Murray%20J).pdf/pdf www.courts.ie/view/judgments/1a5028e3-c561-47e2-b4e2-a16c28641cfa/0c34f016-43f4-4c54-8975-d475088778e0/2023_IESC_10_(Hogan%20J).pdf/pdf

Facts: A and B were a same sex couple who lived in England and had a child through gestational surrogacy. The child was conceived using eggs donated by an anonymous donor inseminated with sperm from B. The surrogate was named as the child’s mother on the birth certificate, along with B as the child’s father. The couple, A and B, … Read More

Principles:The term “parent” in section 7(1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 must be interpreted to refer to the genetic father of the child and the birth mother.
Go Back

Middelkamp v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


Middelkamp v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Jaimee Middelkamp
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2023] IESC 2
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:01 Feb 2023
Judge:Hogan, G. 
Category:Immigration, Residence
Keywords:European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to)
URL:www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c0c9c765-7099-4d6d-aefa-7b84d49ba5c1/2023_IESC_%202_%20Hogan%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The respondent is a Canadian citizen and her husband is also a Canadian national. In 2018, the respondent’s husband commenced a four-year dentistry course in University College Cork and obtained a student visa. The respondent entered the State under the Working Holiday Authorisation Scheme, with a non-renewable permission valid until 2020. At the end of 2019, she applied to … Read More

Principles:The Minister’s decision engaged the respondents’ right to respect for family life under Article 8(1) ECHR, but interference with this right was justified as being necessary in a democratic society for the purposes of Article 8(2).
Go Back

A.S.A. v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


ASA v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge: MacMenamin J.
Category:Asylum, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Carltona Principle, Deportation, Leave to Remain, Protection (International), Return
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:www.courts.ie/view/judgments/b76af74a-fd59-4100-9a63-31b836b1eeed/de05c437-f17e-47ad-a7d9-893981bb5f42/2022_IESC_49.pdf/pdf

 Facts: The appellant was a national of Nigeria. He submitted an application for international protection in 2016, which was unsuccessful. The appellant was informed that an International Protection Officer (IPO) had recommended he not be granted refugee status or subsidiary protection pursuant to section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015. He was subsequently informed that the Minister for Justice … Read More

Principles:There is no conflict of roles or functions exists between an international protection officer in their role in the international protection procedure, and an officer of the Minister in their role in permission to remain decisions under section 49 of the 2015 Act.
Go Back

M.K. (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality

EMNireland


M.K. (Albania) v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 48
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:24 Nov 2022
Judge:MacMenamin, J., Baker, M., Hogan, G., O’Donnell, D., O’Malley, I.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Asylum Applicant, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Minor (Unaccompanied)
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b7644178-2667-49b6-9267-a026008e7947/2022_IESC_48_(Mac%20Menamin%20J).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The appellant, MK, was a national of Albania and arrived in Ireland in 2016 as an unaccompanied minor. He lived with a foster family and was enrolled in school in Dublin. He applied for international protection in 2017 with the assistance of Tusla, and in 2018, he was granted permission to enter the labour market. He left school and … Read More

Principles:Exceptional circumstances do not need to be established for Article 8(1) ECHR rights to be engaged. A low threshold applies to engaging Article 8(1) rights. Once engaged, the decision-maker must then conduct a proportionality assessment under Article 8(2) ECHR as to whether the interference with a person’s Article 8 rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued.
Go Back

A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors

admin


A & B v International Protection Appeals Tribunal & ors
Respondent/Defendant:The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 35
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review /Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Jul 2022
Judge:MacMenamin J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Appeal, Asylum, Asylum Applicant, Deportation Order, Final Decision
Country of Origin:Georgia, Brazil
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/f081dc1c-a3d2-4466-98aa-d2b12e68774a/0df6da0b-dc38-4b7b-9784-c3e79fe99faf/2022_IESC_35_McMenamin%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: Mr. A, from Georgia, and Ms. B, from Brazil, both separately applied for international protection in Ireland. It was recommended that their applications be refused under section 39(3)(b) of the International Protection Act 2015 and reports were issued to the Minister under section 40 of the 2015 Act recommending the refusal of their applications. Neither appellant brought an appeal … Read More

Principles:The IPAT acted ultra vires in not allowing persons who had received a negative first instance decision to apply for an extension of time to appeal. Persons who are no longer considered applicants may apply to extend the time to appeal a decision issued under section 39 of the International Protection Act 2015.
Go Back

UM v the Minister for Foreign Affairs & anor

admin


M v the Minister for Foreign Affairs & anor
Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Passport Appeals Officer David Barry
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2022] IESC 25
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:02 Jun 2022
Judge: Dunne E.
Category:Citizenship, Citizenship (Loss of), Refugee Law
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Citizenship (Loss of), Dependant, Family Member, Refugee, Refugee Status (Withdrawal of)
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://courts.ie/view/judgments/489c8348-eefe-4710-ad77-5d07c5900dfe/c6e228ba-8511-496c-bfcf-97e1fb6be228/2022_IESC_25_Dunne%20J.pdf/pdf

Facts: UM was born in Galway in June 2013. His father, MM, an Afghan national, was declared a refugee in in Ireland in 2006. In June 2013, MM was informed by the Department of Justice of an intention to revoke his refugee status on grounds including that he had returned to Afghanistan and stayed there for two months and that … Read More

Principles:Revocation of refugee status has prospective effect. A residence status conferred by the State on a parent based on false or misleading information could, under the terms of the relevant legislation, be included for the calculation of the period required to confer an entitlement of citizenship to their child.
Go Back

Sobhy v the Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


Sobhy v the Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:The Chief Appeals Officer, Minster for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2021] IESC 81
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:16 Dec 2021
Judge:Baker M
Category:Immigration law
Keywords:Employment, Employment of ILLEGALLY resident third-country national (Illegal), Migrant (Illegally resident / staying), Regularisation
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/202b8113-c263-4b55-9f17-01d39a3c6e3c/2021_IESC_81.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant, a national of Mauritius, arrived in Ireland in 2008 under a scheme to attract foreign students. She studied and worked in Ireland lawfully until 2012. A change in the scheme required the applicant to apply for a change of status. Her two applications were refused. The applicant continued to reside and work in Ireland without an immigration … Read More

Principles:Social welfare benefits under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 cannot accrue to a person who does not have a work permit or immigration permission to be in the State, despite making the relevant statutory contributions.
Go Back

H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality

admin


H & anor v Minister for Justice and Equality
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland
Court/s:High Court, Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IEHC 360, [2021] IESC 0032
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:11 May 2021
Judge:Charleton P.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Member, Free Movement, Illegal Stay, Minor, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/890a1003-8ef2-425c-935a-40d96c3b1c33/c6bf103b-a935-4894-b4d8-b9b773ba936f/2021_IESC_32.pdf/pdf

Facts: MIH and her daughter, SIH, are Pakistani nationals. They arrived in Ireland in 2014 with MIH’s brother, a British citizen and applied for EU1 Residence Cards. These applications were refused. At that time, the Minister issued notifications proposing to deport the applicants pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. However, it was not until 18 … Read More

Principles:Delay in issuing a deportation order, in and of itself, cannot create rights to remain in the State where otherwise non-nationals have no entitlement to residence.
Go Back

Damache v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


Damache v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2021] IESC 6
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:10 Feb 2021
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Loss of), Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e8e35474-4125-4e5e-8023-5a69ee31a436/2021_IESC_6.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was an Algerian national who had been granted a certificate of naturalisation but subsequently pleaded guilty in the United States to a charge of materially assisting in an Islamist terrorist conspiracy. The Minister subsequently issued a proposal to revoke the applicant’s naturalisation on the basis that he had failed in his duty of loyalty and fidelity to … Read More

Principles:Section 19(2) and (3) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. Before any revocations could take place it would be necessary to introduce a new process which meets the requirements of natural justice. Given that there was a statutory scheme in place, it would be appropriate for the Oireachtas to determine the basis of any proposed scheme to replace that which has been found wanting, whether the process should be dealt with by way of statutory amendment or alternatively, by way of statute empowering the Minister to create an administrative scheme.
Go Back

A, S and I v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 70
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:08 Dec 2020
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child (Separated), Family (Nuclear), Family Unity (Right to), Protection (International), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d0eae3ec-52c2-41af-8f01-f97a34a2d5ab/2020_IESC_70_Dunne%20J.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first and second applicants were recognised refugees whose applications for family reunification with their wives were refused on the basis that their marriages took place after they had applied for international protection. They challenged the constitutionality and/or ECHR compatibility of section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 (which limits the right of family reunification to spouses where … Read More

Principles:The limitation of the right to family reunification to spouses whose marriages took place prior to submission of an application for international protection was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR. The absolute 12 month time limit for submission of an application for family reunification was neither unconstitutional nor in breach of the ECHR.
Go Back

Damache v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment


Damache v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 63
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:14 Oct 2020
Judge:Dunne E
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, Citizenship (Loss of), Naturalisation
Country of Origin:Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/9f6e2c6d-eb77-4c9f-ad57-fffe7ffc65f6/2020_IESC_63.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts:  The applicant was an Algerian national who had been granted a certificate of naturalisation but subsequently pleaded guilty in the United States to a charge of materially assisting in an Islamist terrorist conspiracy. The Minister subsequently issued a proposal to revoke the applicant’s naturalisation on the basis that he had failed in his duty of loyalty and fidelity to … Read More

Principles:Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 was unconstitutional because it did not provide the procedural safeguards required to meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person facing revocation of naturalisation by reason of the absence of an impartial and independent decision maker.
Go Back

Gorry v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment


Gorry v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 55
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:23 Sep 2020
Judge:O’Donnell D
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family (Nuclear), Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Migration (Family)
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/ab9b764b-8af3-42dd-b6e4-49d07a43876b/2020_IESC_55_1%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first named applicant was a Nigerian woman who was refused asylum in Ireland and in respect of whom a deportation order was made in June 2005. She lived in Ireland without permission for four years. In 2006, she met the second named applicant who was an Irish citizen. After a number of years they decided to marry. The … Read More

Principles:There is no prima facie constitutionally protected right to cohabit in the State for marital couples, one of whom is a non-Irish national. However, the test under Article 8 of the ECHR should not be applied in the consideration of issues arising under the Constitution, because while the Constitution and the ECHR together provide extensive overlapping protection for families and marriage, it is necessary to recognise the different contexts.
Go Back

MKFS v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 48
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:24 Jul 2020
Judge:McKechnie W
Category:Immigration
Keywords:Family Member, Free Movement, Marriage of Convenience
Country of Origin:Pakistan, Latvia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/62731429-025f-485f-95c7-8ceb67c95d52/2020_IESC_48(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national who entered the State on 12th June 2009 on a visit visa. On 12th February 2000 he married a Latvian national who was resident in the State and exercising her EU Treaty Rights. On 27th April 2010 the applicant applied for a residence card under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. … Read More

Principles:The Minister for Justice is entitled in the course of the deportation decision-making process to rely on an earlier, unchallenged finding that a marriage is one of convenience. However, he must nonetheless have regard, in operating that process, to the Article 8 rights of the applicants as founded on the underlying relationship between the parties.
Go Back

NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

adminLeave a Comment


NVU v Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 46
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review/appeal
Judgment Date/s:24 Jul 2020
Judge:Charleton P
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum (Application for), Asylum Applicant (Secondary Movement of), Dublin Regulation
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d6d97d9b-4212-40ae-a63d-f35167872560/2020_IESC_46(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicants were a family of Pakistani nationals who had originally travelled to the United Kingdom on a visa, but subsequently came to Ireland and claimed asylum. In accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, a first instance decision was made by the Refugee Applications Commissioner that the United Kingdom was the responsible Member State and it was therefore proposed … Read More

Principles:The Article 17 discretion had not been devolved onto to the statutory bodies with responsibility for examining refugee applications and appeals, but rather was exercisable only by the Minister for Justice.
Go Back

MAM and KN v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2020] IESC 32
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Jun 2020
Judge:MacMenamin J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Citizenship, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Somalia and Uzbekistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/5233d3ad-29b9-4f07-9536-65eb166a1784/2020_IESC_32.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts The issue raised in these proceedings was effectively whether a refugee who subsequently acquired Irish citizenship by naturalisation lost the right to family reunification pursuant to section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996. The evidence before the court was that between 2010 and 2017 the Minister for Justice accepted applications for family reunification from refugees who had acquired Irish … Read More

Go Back