T.R.I. (a minor suing by his mother and next friend LB) v the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Justice

EMNireland

Respondent/Defendant:The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2024] IEHC 96
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial review
Judgment Date/s:21 Feb 2024
Judge:Bolger, Marguerite
Category:Citizenship
Keywords:Citizenship, Naturalisation, Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Residence Permit
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/36d60b60-b600-4311-a7bd-9108eb22ffb7/2024_IEHC_96.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
References:AJK v The Minister for Defence [2020]

Facts: The applicant was a child who was born in Ireland and whose mother held subsidiary protection status in the State. The child’s mother applied for an Irish passport for the child relying on section 6A(2)(d)(i) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. Section 6A(1) of the 1956 Act provides that a person who was born in Ireland shall … Read More

Principles:The period of residence of subsidiary protection holders is temporally restricted. The children of subsidiary protection holders therefore cannot rely on s. 6A (2)(d)(i), Irish Citizenship and Nationality Act 1956 to apply for citizenship.
Go Back

HN (Nawaz) v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment


Nawaz
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2012] IESC 58
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:19 Dec 2012
Judge:Supreme Court (Fennelly J, O'Donnell J, McKechnie J, Clarke J, MacMenamin J)
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum, Geneva Convention & Protocol, Protection, Protection (Application for International), Protection (International), Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Refugee (Convention), Third-Country National
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/85c26c9e-adaf-4910-8187-53a056c2c041/2012_IESC_58_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was a national of Pakistan and from the Swat Valley. He arrived in Ireland in 2003 on a student visa. He married an Irish national and was granted permission to remain in the State until 2005. The marriage ended and the Minister notified him that his permission to be in the State was not being renewed as … Read More

Principles:

The true question was whether the ‘Qualification Directive’ required Member States, in their implementing measures, to make it possible for a third country national to make an application for subsidiary protection without making any application for refugee status. 

In order to determine whether the Minister was obliged to consider the applicant’s application for subsidiary protection in the absence of a determination that he was not entitled to refugee status, it was necessary to establish whether it is compatible with the ‘Qualification Directive’ for Irish law to provide that an application for Subsidiary protection will not be considered unless the applicant has already applied for and been refused refugee status. 

For this purpose the Supreme Court referred the following question to the European Court of Justice for preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 267 TFEU:

“Does Council Directive 2004/83/EC, interpreted in the light of the principle of good administration in the law of the European Union and, in particular, as provided for by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, permit a Member State, to provide in its law that an application for subsidiary protection status can be considered only if the applicant has applied for and been refused refugee status in accordance with national law?”

Go Back

Debisi v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:2nd February, Unreported
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:02 Feb 2012
Judge:Cooke J
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Asylum application (Examination of an), Deportation, Deportation Order, Protection (Application for International), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee, Removal, Removal Order
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/a7137d48-a7be-4ce0-ad03-81fe704b3670/2012_IEHC_44_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

The applicant had been refused asylum by the Refugee Applications Commissioner, and withdrew his appeal to the Refugee appeals Tribunal on the basis that his fear of serious harm in Nigeria was not one with a Convention nexus. His subsequent application for subsidiary protection, which was based on the same facts as his asylum claim, purported to reject the Commissioner’s … Read More

Principles:

There is no obligation on the Minister to reconsider a subsidiary protection applicant’s credibility in the absence of new evidence, information or other basis capable of demonstrating that the original findings were vitiated by material error on the part of the decision maker.

It may be that the fair procedures require the Minister for Justice to interview an applicant for subsidiary protection who seeks to rely upon a risk of harm from a source not previously considered in the asylum process. The deportation process is interrupted by the requirement to determine the subsidiary protection application. It is in the sense of resuming or continuing the procedure initiated with the notification of the deportation proposal that the words ‘proceed to consider’ are used in Regulation 4(5) of the European Community (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.

The work done by officials in the Department of Justice in preparing an examination of file re deportation is preparatory work only, and may be undertaken before a subsidiary protection application is determined. The Minister remains entirely free to make his own judgment on the case.

Go Back

Gavrylyuk and Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Bensaada 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 321
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Oct 2008
Judge:Birmingham J.
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Ukraine; Algeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/1fb15f0b-5c2a-48bd-894f-3afacf391033/2008_IEHC_321_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Mr and Mrs Gavrylyuk were Ukrainian nationals of Romanian ethnicity. They applied for asylum in Ireland, claiming that they were being wrongly prosecuted in Ukraine for tax offences. Their applications were refused and they made applications for humanitarian leave to remain in the State. These applications were also refused and deportations orders were made in respect of them in March … Read More

Principles:The Minister does not have an obligation to reconsider the situation of any person in respect of whom a deportation order was made prior to the coming into force of the Regulations. However, the Minister retains a discretion under Regulation 4(2) to accept and consider an application for subsidiary protection from an applicant who is able to show that a change of circumstances has arisen since the deportation order was made.
Go Back

N & Anor v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2008] IEHC 107
Judgment Date/s:24 Apr 2008
Judge:Charleton
Category:Refugee Law
Keywords:Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection (Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary), Refugee
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/15d67703-1190-4751-a4e7-ae8f8b753485/2008_IEHC_107_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

The Nigerian national applicants were failed asylum seekers who subsequently applied for subsidiary protection. The Minister refused their applications and they sought to quash those decisions by way of review. The applicants argued that subsidiary protection was a right under EU law and not a matter of Ministerial discretion, that they were entitled to a consideration of their claims for … Read More

Principles:A primary focus in applications for subsidiary protection is any risk to which an applicant alleges he or she would be subject if returned, considered in the light of the situation in terms of peacefulness and the functionality of ordinary protection of that country. A primary question in considering a claim for subsidiary protection is whether what is contended for is new, or has already been the subject of an asylum determination. If substantially new material is put forward it must be given a fair and reasoned consideration.
Go Back

H & D v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2007] IEHC 277
Judgment Date/s:27 Jul 2007
Judge:Feeney
Category:Deportation
Keywords:Deportation, Protection (Person Eligible for Subsidiary), Protection Status (Subsidiary)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f49b35e1-a587-46fd-afa1-5dcdb253d0ad/2007_IEHC_277_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Both applicants had been refused declarations of refugee status, had been refused leave to remain and were the subjects of deportation orders. Both applied for subsidiary protection contending that they had an automatic right to apply for subsidiary protection pursuant to the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection Regulations 2006) S.I. No. 518/2006 and Council Directive 2004/83/EC. The Minister stated that … Read More

Principles:People in respect of whom deportation orders are made after 10 October 2006 have an automatic right to apply for subsidiary protection. Regulation 4(2) of S.I. No. 518 of 2006 gives the Minister discretion to consider applications for subsidiary protection from other applicants. If a person, whose deportation order pre-dated the transposition of Council Directive 2004/83/EC and who has been refused leave to remain, is able to identify new facts or circumstances arising after the determination of that application, the Minister has discretion to allow such a person apply for subsidiary protection.
Go Back