The High Court has refused SH’s challenge to the refusal of family reunification for his adult sons, but found that the State breached AJ’s EU law right to receive information in a language he could understand after being granted refugee status. It adjourned AJ’s claim for damages until a ministerial review of his family reunification application is decided.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter delivered the judgment on 27 June 2022 in judicial review proceedings brought by SH and AJ. Section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 makes a child eligible for statutory family reunification only if the child is under 18 and unmarried on the date the application is made.
SH argued that delays in processing his protection application meant his son AH turned 18 before SH could apply to bring him to Ireland. The court accepted that SH had acted promptly and had not caused the delay, but found that Covid-19 disruption explained the delay in the protection process. It declined to disapply the statutory age rule. It also rejected challenges alleging that the rule breached EU law, the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights. SH’s application for relief was refused.
The judge said the pandemic’s impact on SH’s case should receive appropriate weight when the Minister assesses SH’s separate application for his sons under the non-statutory family reunification policy. That application had not been determined at the time of the hearing, and the court made no decision on it.
AJ’s son MJ turned 18 shortly before AJ applied for statutory family reunification. The court rejected AJ’s argument that the Minister’s review decision on that application was legally flawed. It also did not strike down the non-statutory policy. However, it criticised the first-instance refusal of AJ’s policy application for failing to engage with evidence about the risks MJ said he faced in Somalia and the reasons AJ had missed the statutory application window. That refusal was under ministerial review, not before the court for a decision.
The court found that AJ had a right under Article 22 of the EU Qualification Directive to receive information, as soon as possible after protection status was granted, about rights relating to that status in a language likely to be understood by him. The State accepted that Article 22 had not been transposed in terms and that AJ received no such information in Somali after his refugee status was granted. The judge held that information provided before status was granted did not meet that obligation.
The court found the breach sufficiently serious and a direct causal link between the lack of information and AJ’s failure to apply for family reunification for MJ before he turned 18. It did not order family reunification or decide damages. Further consideration of AJ’s damages claim was adjourned pending the Minister’s review decision. Costs were also held over.