AMS (Somalia) v Minister for Justice and Equality; AK (Afghanistan) v Minister for Justice and Equality

emnadmin


AMS (Somalia)
Respondent/Defendant:Minister for Justice and Equality
Court/s:High Court
Citation/s:[2012] IEHC 72
Nature of Proceedings:Judicial Review
Judgment Date/s:14 Feb 2012
Judge:Cross J.
Category:Refugee Law, Residence
Keywords:Dependant, Entry (Refusal of), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Family Life (Right to), Family Member, Family Reunification, Refugee, Residence, Residence Permit
Country of Origin:Somalia Afghanistan
URL:https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/0728a8d8-adb0-461d-8e04-8282437f77a0/2012_IEHC_72_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Geographic Focus:Ireland

Facts The first applicant was a national of Somalia and was recognised as a refugee in the State in 2009. He applied to the Minister under Sections 18(3) and (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 for family reunification with his wife, mother and four minor siblings. All had been living in a refugee camp outside Mogadishu and, at the time … Read More

Principles:

For the purposes of family reunification part of the investigation of the family includes an assessment of the domestic circumstances of the dependent family member, not the refugee. 

The Minister’s decision must, per the Supreme Court decision in Meadows v Minister for Justice, disclose at least the essential rationale on foot of which the decision is taken. 

In exercising his discretion to grant permission to dependent family members to enter and reside in the State there must be a separate consideration by the Minister of the refugee and the different dependent family members and their individual personal circumstances. The Minister must carry out a balancing exercise in assessing the proportionality of his decision upon a refugee’s ECHR rights.

If the Minister had a fixed policy  as to family reunification of dependent family members of refugees he should state it so that it could be examined as being reasonable.

Section 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 did not contemplate a “sponsorship” requirement and any such requirement would require a legislative amendment.

Go Back