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

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

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 241
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:24 Apr 2017
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/cb16d5cf-2121-4204-954c-7e3966b4afde/2017_IEHC_241_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicants were students from Mauritius who entered the State on student permissions in 2008 which were renewed for over four years but then expired and the applicants thereafter remained in the State without permission. The Minister made deportation orders against them which rejected their assertions that they had acquired private life rights in the State by reason of … Read More

Principles:

Non-nationals who are resident in the State on student permissions should not be regarded as settled migrants.

Go Back

Nwosu v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 372
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:10 Mar 2017
Judge:Faherty M.
Category:Residence, Visa
Keywords:Family Member, Family Reunification, Immigration, Residence, Third-Country National, Visa
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/46fee6b0-13c3-4252-8513-389ea29706a0/2017_IEHC_372_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

Facts: The first named applicant was a health care worker and an Irish citizen. The second named applicant was a business owner and a Nigerian citizen. The first named applicant was born in Nigeria but moved to Ireland in 2002. In 2008, she was granted three years permission to remain in the State. In her grounding affidavit, the first named … Read More

Principles:

The Minister was entitled to refuse an application for a join spouse visa on the basis that the applicants did not meet the minimum income threshold set out in the  INIS Policy Document on non-EEA Family Reunification and therefore finding that the grant of the visa was likely to put pressure on the family’s financial resources with the likelihood of a cost to public funds and public resources.  

Go Back

WS v Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2017] IEHC 128
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Feb 2017
Judge:O'Regan M.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Deportation Order, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Immigration, Non-national, Residence, Student, Visa
Country of Origin:Malaysia
URL:http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/36BBA683D8E20E90802580F0005A4B79
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts:  The applicant was a Malaysian citizen who arrived initially in Ireland in 2007 with his wife. They had secured a visitors’ permission to remain for 90 days, however they outstayed this period by approximately 2 years when they returned to Malaysia in 2009. In July 2009 the applicant secured a 1 year valid student visa and his wife and … Read More

Principles:

The conditions attached to a student visa did not preclude such a person from being considered to be a settled migrant for the period for which they have permission.

Go Back

Luximon v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 382
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Protection (International), Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/8fa3faf7-d874-4a36-914c-4354fad01088/2016_IECA_382_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Mauritian citizen who came to Ireland in July 2006 on an student permission. This permission was renewed  from time to time until June 2012. In October 2012 she applied for a change of status to regularise her position in the State, which would effectively allow her continue to reside in Ireland without the requirement that … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

Balchand v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 383
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2016
Judge:Finlay Geoghegan J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Immigration, Regularisation, Residence, Residence Permit, Student
Country of Origin:Mauritius
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/e23dd69e-8b80-4b5e-955e-6b6522fde01e/2016_IECA_383_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The first named applicant was a Mauritian national who arrived in the State on the 7 December 2006 and was granted an immigration permission on student conditions (generally referred to as “stamp 2” conditions or permission). He married the second named applicant, who was also a Mauritian national, and shortly thereafter she also arrived in the State and was … Read More

Principles:

The decision in Luximon confirms that the provisions of the Irish Constitution regarding private and family life rights and similar rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights must be considered by the Minister when assessing an application for change of immigration status under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004.

Go Back

AB v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Citation/s:[2016] IECA 48
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:26 Feb 2016
Judge:Ryan S.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Residence
Country of Origin:Pakistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/35b6361f-dfe3-4044-88dc-ebbab38303b3/2016_IECA_48_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Other

Facts: The applicant was a Pakistani national. Her daughter and son-in-law lived lawfully in Cork with their two Irish citizen daughters who were born, respectively, in 2010 and 2011. She came to Ireland on a visitor visa lasting for 90 days from the date of issue in April 2011 and was here for the birth of her daughter’s second child. … Read More

Principles:

The decision of the Court of Appeal in AB v Minister for Justice confirms that a person who is unlawfully in the State has no right to make a freestanding application for permission to be in the State outside of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.

Go Back

Ford and Another v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 720
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Nov 2015
Judge:Eagar J.
Category:Residence, Visa
Keywords:Residence, Visa
Country of Origin:Ireland and Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/51d7377f-7996-45cd-ac33-6a4c18793bb7/2014_IEHC_123_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were a married couple. The first applicant, the wife, was an Irish national. She had three children from another relationship who were all Irish citizens and aged approximately 21, 12 and 6. Her husband was a Nigerian national. She was introduced to him by a mutual friend in or around 2010 and they maintained contact via telephone … Read More

Principles:

This decision emphasises the extent to which novel means of communication, such as social media, can be important in establishing the existence of article 8 ECHR rights and similar constitutional rights for the purpose of making immigration-related applications, such as an application to join a spouse or, in the context of international protection, an application for family reunification. The decision also indicates that, when assessing such applications and the “family rights” at play,, decision-makers should give proper regard to the provisions of the Constitution, and not restrict their focus to article 8 ECHR.

Go Back

Li v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 638
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:21 Oct 2015
Judge:Humphreys J.
Category:Residence, Visa
Keywords:Immigration, Residence, Visa
Country of Origin:China
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c5061a65-2dd5-4732-babc-35e8ba7a395b/2015_IEHC_638_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants were Chinese nationals who were married and had an adult daughter, who married an Irish citizen in May 2011 and obtained Irish residency thereafter. In 2012 the applicants obtained a 90 day visitor’s visa to come to Ireland to visit their daughter. They returned to China immediately before the visa expired. They subsequently applied for a further … Read More

Principles:

Where a visa-required national enters the State and wishes to remain on its territory after the expiry of the visa, he or she is required, upon or before expiry of that visa, to leave the State and make an application to re-enter it from outside its territory.

Go Back

Sandu v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 683
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:31 Jul 2015
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:EU Treaty Rights, Removal Order, Residence
Country of Origin:Romania
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f83deff3-63b2-41dd-9b97-7a7066b1b924/2015_IEHC_683_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was a Romanian national who sought asylum in Ireland on the 26 March 2001, as did his girlfriend, who was also Romanian, and gave birth to a child in Ireland, who was a citizen by operation of law. They subsequently withdrew their applications for asylum and applied to the Minister for Justice for permission to remain on … Read More

Principles:

When deciding whether or not a person has accumulated 10 years’ residence in the State for the purpose of acquiring enhanced protection from expulsion under Article 28(3) of the Citizens’ Directive, the Minister for Justice must count back from the date upon which the removal order was made in order to ascertain if the necessary period of residence has been completed.

Go Back

AGA and Another v Minister for Justice

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2015] IEHC 469
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:16 Jul 2015
Judge:Stewart J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Child, Family Life (Right to), Minor, Residence
Country of Origin:United Kingdom and Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bd762853-57c9-4297-bf9e-16e9066bb537/2015_IEHC_469_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicants, who were mother and daughter, sought to quash a decision of the Minister for Justice whereby she refused the first applicant’s application for residency, which was based on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in C-200/02 Zhu and Chen. They claimed that the second applicant was a national of the United … Read More

Principles:

In deciding whether a primary carer of a minor (who is a citizen of the European Union) has sufficient resources, the Minister for Justice is entitled to investigate whether such resources exist and inquires into their amount and availability.

Go Back

Ogieriakhi v Minister for Justice and Others (No. 2)

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland, Attorney General and An Post
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 582
Nature of Proceedings:First instance
Judgment Date/s:22 Dec 2014
Judge:Hogan J.
Category:Employment, EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Employee, Employer, Employment, EU Treaty Rights, First instance, Free Movement, Residence
Country of Origin:Nigeria / Ireland (naturalised Irish citizen)
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/290f664d-7b03-492c-8bc9-421de9ab14a5/2014_IEHC_582_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The plaintiff was a naturalised Irish citizen of Nigerian origin. In October, 2007, he was dismissed from his employment as a postal sorter with An Post on the sole ground that he could not establish at the time to the satisfaction of his employer that he had the right to work in Ireland. In High Court proceedings for damages … Read More

Principles:

In order to bring a damages claim against a Member State like Ireland for breach of EU law under the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 1991 decision in Francovich, the breach must be sufficiently serious. In deciding whether or not this is so, the court must determine whether or not the Member State concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits of its discretion. In examining that question, the criteria which national courts may take into account include the degree of clarity and precision of the rule infringed. In general, any loss incurred as a result of a breach must be mitigated. Where loss has occurred due to breach of property rights, Francovich provides an adequate remedy and it is not necessary to compensate the injured party by reference to the property rights provisions of the Constitution of 1937. Nonetheless, recourse to other remedies, such as constitutional protection of the right to one’s good name, may be relevant and obtainable in a given case.

Go Back

FB v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 427
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:05 Sep 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Dependant, Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence
Country of Origin:Nigeria
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/bf1d07a3-4778-4602-9396-1f1df5807ca4/2014_IEHC_427_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The applicant was an elderly Nigerian national who had been granted refugee status in Ireland. She applied for family reunification with two alleged granddaughters who were said to have been dependent on her in Nigeria, pursuant to s. 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996. She claimed that she had left them in the care of an individual when she … Read More

Principles:

In assessing whether a person is dependent on an applicant for family reunification pursuant to s. 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996, regard must not be had solely to considerations of financial dependence.

Where financial dependence is considered, it will not necessarily be sufficient to consider the average income in the subject of the application’s country of origin with a view to determining the extent to which remittances from the applicant give rise to dependence. Financial burdens on the subject, and the extent to which they are alleviated by the remittances, also need to be considered.

Go Back

OA and Another v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2014] IEHC 384
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:30 Jul 2014
Judge:Barr J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Free Movement, Minor, Non-EU National, Residence
Country of Origin:Kenya
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/162b6ca0-95c8-4dff-a865-2bf56323fdff/2014_IEHC_384_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts: The first named applicant was a Kenyan national who arrived in Ireland with her infant daughter and applied unsuccessfully for asylum. Shortly after her arrival in Ireland, she met a Nigerian-born German national, and they began a relationship. She became pregnant with his child, the second named applicant, who was born in 2010 and was a German national by … Read More

Principles:

In assessing whether the primary carer of a Union citizen has sufficient resources for the purpose of establishing whether or not he or she obtains a derivative right of residence pursuant to the decision of the ECJ /CJEU in C-200/02 Chen,  the resources do not have to be extant at the time of the primary carer’s application for residence and, in particular, they can be held to exist if the primary carer can obtain them by taking up employment. It therefore follows that a grant of permission pursuant to Chen must be on the basis of stamp 4 conditions, i.e. include the right to work.

Go Back

AAM v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 68
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:15 Dec 2013
Judge:Clark J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Dependant, Entry (Refusal of), Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/abc8f4a8-c6d0-4f06-9af0-c08a0011f4dd/2013_IEHC_68_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant, a national of Somalia, had been granted refugee status in the State, and he applied for family reunification pursuant to Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 with his mother and four siblings, who lived in a camp in Somalia. He sent them approximately €157 per month. Whilst the Minister accepted the claimed family relationship, his application … Read More

Principles:

In deciding applications for family reunification made on the basis of dependency, it is not a relevant consideration when deciding on the issue of dependency that the applicant may not be able to maintain the family members who are the subjects of the application in the State. Additionally, when considering whether or not financial transfers made by the applicant to the subjects of the application tend to show that they are dependent on him or her, it is appropriate to use some kind of “yardstick” by reference to which the likely impact of such transfers on the subjects can be measured. The lack of such a “yardstick” may mean that any refusal to accept that the transfers give rise to a situation of dependency would be set aside for want of a rational basis.

Go Back

Wang (a minor) v Minister for Justice and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Law Reform
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 311
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:23 Jul 2013
Judge:Cooke J
Category:EU Treaty Rights, Residence
Keywords:Adult, Child, Dependant, EU Treaty Rights, Family Formation, Family Member, Freedom of Movement (Right to), Member State (Remain in the), Minor, Non-EU National, Non-national, Residence, Residence Permit, Union Citizen
Country of Origin:China / Hungary
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/86f5c09d-0e67-49c9-a8bd-7b4b05b39981/2012_IEHC_311_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The second applicant was a Chinese national who arrived in the State on a student visa in 2004. She met a Hungarian national in 2005 and they married in 2006. She was subsequently granted permission to remain in the State for a five-year period under the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 as the  wife … Read More

Principles:

It was not arguable that a parent could claim to be a dependent of a three year old EU citizen child and an adult could not be the dependent of a child. 

It was arguable that a parent might be considered a member of the household of a minor EU citizen and the term household was open to the interpretation that if one individual is an EU citizen all members of the group could be regarded as equal members of the household.

In applying the Chen principles and considering the question of self-sufficiency within those principles, it must be clear what test of self-sufficiency the Minister was applying. The Minister must reach a reasonable and proportionate conclusion in assessing an application as to whether the Chen conditions are met.

Go Back

A v Minister for Justice [2013] IEHC 356

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 356, 19 July 2013
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:19 Jul 2013
Judge:MacEochaidh J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Dependant, Entry (Refusal of), Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence
Country of Origin:Iraq
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6e3cfc21-3574-48f1-92f4-b36b2efaf939/2013_IEHC_356_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The applicant was an Iraqi national who had been granted refugee status in the State. He made a family reunification application in respect of his parents and two sisters, pursuant to Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996, which gives the Minister for Justice discretion to grant permission to a dependent member of the family of a refugee to … Read More

Principles:

In determining applications for family reunification based on dependency, the Minister is obliged to have regard to all of the evidence relating thereto, including any evidence showing that the subjects of the application are not able to maintain themselves fully or of transfer of funds from the applicant to the subject of the application. Determinations  refusing applications for family reunification must be properly reasoned, and if they are based on errors of fact or speculation,  they are liable to be set aside by the court.

Go Back

AJ v Minister for Justice and Equality

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2013] IEHC 296
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:18 Jun 2013
Judge:Clark J.
Category:Residence
Keywords:Member State (Remain in the), Protection (Humanitarian), Refoulement, Residence
Country of Origin:Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f8ce6b8e-0505-4809-88ed-3d981bef3226/2013_IEHC_296_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant, an Afghan national, sought to quash a positive decision granting him leave to remain in circumstances where he had not challenged a decision by the Minister for Justice to refuse visa applications made in respect of his family, who were living in Iran. The Minister had a general policy not to permit any person, whether related … Read More

Principles:

A person the subject of a grant of leave to remain will not necessarily be entitled to reasons why that grant was made, at least in circumstances where it is open to the High Court to infer from the evidence what those reasons were.

Go Back

Hassan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

emnadmin

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2013] IESC 8
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:20 Feb 2013
Judge:Fennelly J. (Denham CJ, Murray, Hardiman and Clarke JJ. concurring) Murray J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence
Country of Origin:Somalia
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/74b8fd98-9cfd-4da0-acab-704ad36f9366/2013_IESC_8_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant was a national of Somalia and was granted refugee status. He then applied to the Minister for Justice pursuant to Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 for family reunification with his alleged spouse, the second applicant. He indicated in his application that his marriage was religious in nature but he was unable to provide any … Read More

Principles:

The question of whether a person the subject of an application for family reunification is the spouse of the applicant, as alleged, is a matter for the Minister for Justice to decide. A marriage contracted in a foreign country which complies with the requirements of the laws of that country, the lex loci celebrationis, is valid under Irish law, unless it conflicts with fundamental requirements relating to validity, such as incapacity to marry. A decision made by the Minister must be based on all the evidence submitted. A lack of formal proof of the marriage is a matter in respect of which the Minister is entitled to seek an explanation, and must take any explanation into account in deciding whether or not a marriage subsists. He must also take into account any evidence which suggests that the parties have cohabited as a married couple.

Go Back

Hamza v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

adminLeave a Comment

Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Court/s:Supreme Court
Citation/s:[2013] IESC 9
Nature of Proceedings:Appeal
Judgment Date/s:20 Feb 2013
Judge:Fennelly J. (Denham CJ, Murray, Hardiman and Clarke JJ. concurring)
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence
Country of Origin:Sudan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/76696c85-52c2-425f-9edc-62942e421d41/2013_IESC_9_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant was a national of Sudan who had been granted refugee status. He applied to the Minister for Justice pursuant to s. 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 for family reunification with his spouse, the second named applicant. In the course of his application he submitted a certificate which indicated that the marriage had taken place by … Read More

Principles:

The question of whether a person the subject of an application for family reunification is the spouse of the applicant, as alleged, is a matter for the Minister for Justice to decide. A marriage contracted in a foreign country which complies with the requirements of the laws of that country, the lex loci celebrationis, is valid under Irish law, unless it conflicts with fundamental requirements relating to validity, such as incapacity to marry. Proxy marriages validly contracted under foreign law are therefore valid under Irish law, unless the existence of a fundamental requirement relating to validity is shown to exist.

Go Back