TA & ors v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 694
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:04 Dec 2024
Judge:O’Regan, M.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Citizenship (Acquisition of), Family Life (Right to), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), marriage
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fc3cb44a-854a-4eca-9224-4fb186f1cda1/2024_IEHC_694.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The husband is an Afghan national, who fled to Ireland in 2006 and naturalised as an Irish citizen in 2021. His wife, who he married in 1998, and four children were resident in Iran and then applied for international protection in Turkey in 2021. The wife and four children applied for long stay visas to come to Ireland in … Read More

Principles:When deciding on visa applications in the context of family reunification for a married couple, due regard should be had to the rights of the applicants under Article 41 of the Constitution, the ability of the couple to cohabit and due respect should be given to the institution of marriage.
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

NZ & ors v Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland
Court/s:High Court
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:03 Oct 2023
Judge:Phelan, S.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Child, Citizenship, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family (Nuclear), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Marriage of Convenience, Naturalisation, Visa
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/2c4a0156-96b1-4406-aea5-974d177175f8/47bd6fa5-1c6a-4229-b8f0-294d5fac50fa/2023_IEHC_545.pdf/pdf
Geographic Focus:Ireland, Pakistan

Facts: SMR was born in Pakistan and married an Irish national in 2004. In 2005, he moved to Ireland and he is now a naturalised Irish citizen. The couple had two children, who are Irish citizens. The applicant submitted that his marriage was subsequently dissolved in accordance with Pakistani law around 2011 and he has custody of the children. In … Read More

Principles:When deciding whether to issue a join family visa to the child of an Irish citizen, consideration must be given the child’s rights under Articles 40 to 42A of the Irish Constitution and a balancing exercise must be conducted between the child’s rights and the State’s interests and the common good.
Go Back

I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

EMNireland


I.A.H. v Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2023] IEHC 117
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:08 Mar 2023
Judge: Phelan S.
Category:Visa
Keywords:Country of Origin, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Protection (Subsidiary), Visa
Country of Origin:Iraq
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/944524e5-c5e2-4cb2-a71c-4408eff09ab5/2023_IEHC_117.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant is an Iraqi national who arrived in Ireland in 2011. She was granted subsidiary protection status in 2015 and in 2018 married an Iraqi national by proxy. She applied for a visa for him to join her in Ireland in 2019 under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification. The Minister refused this application and the appeal … Read More

Principles:In considering an application for family reunification under the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification for a beneficiary of subsidiary protection, proper consideration must be given the impact on the applicant’s protection status and family life and ability to live together elsewhere.
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

H.A. v Minister for Justice

EMNireland


H.A. v Minister for Justice
Respondent/Defendant:H.A.
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2022] IECA 166
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:22 Jul 2022
Judge: Donnelly A
Category:Asylum, Family Reunification, Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Child, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Minor
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bc913491-38f9-446a-ba0f-6324d8b0c8ad/2022_IECA_166.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

 Facts: The respondent was a national of Somalia who was granted refugee status in Ireland. She applied for family reunification with her niece and nephew under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015. Her niece and nephew are orphans and she had accepted responsibility for them. A ‘Declaration of Responsibility’ from Somalia was submitted in this regard.  The application … Read More

Principles:In a decision on a family reunification application, the Minister must consider evidence submitted as regards the relationship of a parent to the child, in this case, a Declaration of Responsibility. This should be referenced in the decision issued by the decision maker.
Go Back

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

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

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

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

II v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 729
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:29 Oct 2019
Judge:Humphreys R
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child (Separated), Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/08ccbb41-7ed2-47cc-b904-f7422dbbe652/2019_IEHC_%20729_%201.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was granted refugee status as a minor on 25 September 2014. In July 2018, when the applicant was aged 17, an application for family reunification in respect of her mother, father and sister was submitted by her social worker. In September 2018 the application was refused by the Minister for Justice on the basis that it had … Read More

Principles:Section 56(8) of the International Protection Act 2015 was not repugnant to the Constitution or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Go Back

A and S v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 547
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:17 Jul 2019
Judge:Barrett M
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Iraq and Afghanistan
URL:courts.ie/view/judgments/a1ff7c8a-9c39-4411-b49d-a0a316a83c36/69965e47-beb6-4eda-8ef4-4f8df5726dd1/2019_IEHC_547_1.pdf/pdf

Facts: The applicants were Iraqi and Afghan nationals who were granted refugee status in the State. They each subsequently applied for family reunification for their wives. The Minister for Justice refused the applications on the basis that section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 only provided for refugee family reunification for spouses where the marriage pre-dated the application for … Read More

Principles:The exclusion of post-flight marriages from the statutory right to family reunification in section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 is unconstitutional.
Go Back

RC v Minister for Justice

emnadminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2019] IEHC 65
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal/Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Feb 2019
Judge:Humphreys R
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Discrimination (Direct), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bd8e4e01-f677-46fd-b565-affc6965ec4a/2019_IEHC_65_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a national of Afghanistan who was granted subsidiary protection in Ireland in 2016. He subsequently applied for family reunification for his wife whom he married in 2017. The Minister for Justice refused the application on the basis that section 56(9)(a) of the 2015 Act only provided for refugee family reunification for spouses where the marriage pre-dated … Read More

Principles:The exclusion of post-flight marriages from the statutory right to family reunification in section 56(9)(a) of the International Protection Act 2015 is not unlawful.
Go Back

FB v Minister for Justice and Equality (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2018] IEHC 716
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:13 Dec 2018
Judge:Keane D.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Child, Family Life (Right to), Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6791ea72-531a-453a-810b-88cbad9da038/2018_IEHC_716_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The applicant was a 75 year old Nigerian national who arrived in the State in 2005 and claimed asylum. She was recognised as a refugee in 2008 and in 2012 became a naturalised citizen. The applicant applied for family reunification with her granddaughters who were dependant upon her. The application was refused by the Minister and the applicant brought … Read More

Principles:It was incumbent on the Minister to consider the concrete reality of the relationship between the persons concerned and the extent to which it was one of “de facto family ties” protected by the right to family life under Article 8 of the Convention, and to set out the Minister’s reasoning on that issue expressly in the decision.
Go Back

Gorry, Ford and ABM v Minister for Justice

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:Court of Appeal
Citation/s:[2017] IECA 280, 281 and 282
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review / Appeal
Judgment Date/s:27 Oct 2017
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Immigration, Non-EU National, Residence, Third-Country National, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Nigeria/Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8c53548e-e3f1-46bd-9973-8b3f13d31f52/2017_IECA_280_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: In each of these cases, one of the applicants was an Irish citizen and was married to the other applicant who is a foreign national. The marriages in question either took place in Ireland or Nigeria, and all three were recognised by the Minister as lawful marriages. Each application for judicial review sought an order of certiorari of an … Read More

Principles:

The Minister did not consider the constitutional rights of the applicants in accordance with law, in particular

  1. the guarantee given by the State in Art.41.1.2° to protect the family in its constitution and authority;
  2. a recognition that the applicants in each case were a family, a fundamental unit group of society possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights which rights included a right to cohabit which was also an individual right of the citizen spouse which the State must, as far as practicable, defend and vindicate (Art.41.1 and Art.40.3.1°);
  3. a recognition that the decision that the family should live in Ireland was a decision which they had the right to take and which the State had guaranteed in Art.41.1 to protect; and
  4. a recognition of the right of the Irish citizen to live at all times in Ireland as part of what Art.2 refers to as the “birth right . . . to be part of the Irish Nation” and the absence of any right of the State (absent international obligations which do not apply) to limit that right.

Go Back

ZMH (Somalia) v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 221
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 May 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Entry (Refusal of), Family Member, Family Reunification, Family Unity (Right to), Refugee, Residence, Residence Permit, Visa
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/68931e53-7755-41de-8c24-597e72be0d88/2012_IEHC_221_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Somalia and declared a refugee in 2008. She applied for family reunification for her husband, two sons and her elderly mother, who were said to be nationals of Somalia but all living in Ethiopia. The Minister requested the applicant to produce Somali passports or identity documents for her family members. This was for … Read More

Principles:

Where the Minister has not refused to exercise his public function, the Court could not grant a mandatory order compelling him to do so.

Given the requirements of Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 and the consequence for the State’s international obligations in issuing authorisations for international travel, the Minister is both entitled and obliged to satisfy himself that authorisations for family reunification and travel visas issued for that purpose are validly issued to persons who have the genuine family relationship claimed and that their identities have been authentically established.

Although considerable doubt surrounds the authenticity of Somali identity documents, it is not unreasonable or irrational for the Minister to insist on the presentation of such a passport, as Somali passports are not rejected outright but only as the sole means of establishing identity. The degree of weight to be attributed to a passport ultimately would depend on the cumulative effect of other proofs and information offered, including DNA tests, if relevant.

Go Back

Scully v Minister for Justice and Equality


Scully
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 466
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Apr 2012
Category:Deportation, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Child, Citizenship, Deportation, Deportation Order, EU Treaty Rights, Family (Nuclear), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Immigrant, Migrant (Labour), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Ireland / Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicants were the parents and minor children, whose husband and father, the second applicant was made the subject of a deportation order in 2009, and on foot of which he was deported. An application was made to the Minister to revoke the deportation order but the Minister refused. The applicants sought to quash the refusal to revoke the … Read More

Principles:

The Minister must construe and apply the protections afforded by Article 40.3, 41 and 42 of the Constitution of Ireland and Article 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in light of the personal and family circumstances of applicants, particularly in relation to minor applicants as [Irish and] EU citizens.

The Minister must reach reasonable and proportionate conclusions, given the permanent impact of a deportation order on the personal and family circumstances of applicants, and having regard to any changed facts contained in an application to revoke a deportation order, and to circumstances where there are minor applicants who are [Irish and] EU citizens.

Go Back

X Adeoye & Ors v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:X Adeoye & Ors
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:25 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan, J
Category:Citizenship, Deportation
Keywords:Absconding, Citizenship, Country of Origin, Dependant, Deportation, Deportation Order, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Expulsion Order, Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Foreigner, Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The Adeoye family sought to quash a decision of the (then) Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (the Minister) pursuant to s. 3(11) of the Immigration Act 1999 to refuse to revoke Mr Adeoye’s deportation order. Mr Adoeye, an architectural student from Nigeria married to an Irish citizen, who had been unsuccessful in an asylum application, and who had … Read More

Principles:It behoves the judicial branch of government to ensure that the fundamental rights in respect of marriage and family life are taken seriously and given “life and reality”. In deciding whether to revoke a deportation order made against the spouse of a citizen, the deciding Minister must weigh the rights of the applicants fairly.
Go Back

Troci v Governor of Cloverhill Prison

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Governor of Cloverhill Prison
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:Unreported High Court (Hogan J) 2nd November 2011 2011 IEHC 405
Nature of Proceedings:Article 40.4.2 Enquiry
Judgment Date/s:02 Nov 2011
Judge:Hogan G.
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Deportation Order, Detainee, Detention, Entry Ban, Expulsion, Expulsion Decision, Family Life (Right to), Family Unity (Right to), Third-Country National, Third-Country national found to be illegally present, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:Albania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2cb16ab5-b669-4336-a856-160050889e46/2011_IEHC_405_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

This case involved an application brought under Article 40.4.2 of the Constitution of Ireland. The Applicant, Ervis Troci, an Albanian national, was arrested pursuant to s. 5(1) (d) of the Immigration Act 1999. He had sought asylum, and his application had been rejected and he subsequently sought to remain in the State for humanitarian reasons. While in the State, the … Read More

Principles:The suspicion on the part of an immigration officer or member of the Garda Siochana underpinning the arrest of a person against whom a deportation order is in force under s. 5(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1999, must refer to some overt act or deed, including statements, on the part of the arrested person, or some external piece of intelligence which suggests that there is a risk that such a person will seek to evade deportation.
Go Back

O’Leary and Others v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2011] IEHC 256
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jun 2011
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Deportation, Residence
Keywords:Deportation, Family Member, Family Unity (Right to), Residence
Country of Origin:South Africa
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/47d0f1d5-5f67-4e7e-95b4-1fe29ded4abb/2011_IEHC_256_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland
References:T.M. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

Facts The elderly South African parents of Mrs O’Leary, a naturalised Irish citizen, wanted to live with their daughter and her family in the State. Mrs O’Leary’s parents had often visited their family in Ireland, and her mother had looked after the grandchildren during the summer months every year since 1996. The applicants claimed that Mrs O’Leary’s parents were dependent … Read More

Principles:

Contested immigration decisions where the immigrant has Irish family may, as in this case, fall to be assessed for their legality from the perspective of the Irish citizens.

In immigration-related administrative decision making, decision maker should seek to given an overall assessment of the merits of an application, rather than seek and articulate grounds to support a refusal.

S. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 gives the Minister power to extend any permission to be in the State to a non Irish national and to prescribe conditions as regards duration which justly and reasonably meets the exigencies of a case.

Consideration of an applicant’s request under s. 4 of the Immigration Act 2004 cannot isolate the financial aspect of a case, lest it be unbalanced.

Go Back