The High Court quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal of a refugee’s family reunification application, finding that the applicant should have been told about doubts over birth certificates and given a chance to respond.
Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that the Minister had acted unlawfully and breached fair procedures. He remitted the application to the Minister for reconsideration, directing that the applicant’s explanations be considered and that the matter be handled urgently. The court did not itself grant permission for the family members to enter or reside in the State.
The applicant, a Ghanaian national granted refugee status in 2003, applied in June that year for permission for his wife and four children to join him. The Minister refused the application in August 2007. Among the reasons given were concerns about the validity of birth certificates and the fact that one child had not been mentioned during the applicant’s asylum process.
The applicant argued that the Minister should have raised those concerns and allowed him to make representations. The Minister submitted that he could decide the application on the documents provided and noted that the applicant could make a fresh application.
The judge distinguished the case from a Supreme Court ruling concerning a different, non-statutory immigration scheme. He said the statutory family reunification process, grounded in the Refugee Act 1996 and international and regional protections, required communication where doubts about supporting documents could affect the decision. A letter seeking an explanation would have been sufficient.
The court noted that the applicant had applied in June 2003 but waited until August 2007 for a decision. It said a fresh application would not answer the problem, given the delay and the risk that the children would reach adulthood before a new decision. The ruling’s communication requirement was limited to cases where the Minister is dissatisfied with documents supporting a family reunification application and that concern could affect the final decision.
The court granted certiorari quashing the refusal, declared it unlawful and sent the application back for reconsideration. It expressed considerable doubt about whether, save in exceptional circumstances, a two-year delay in refugee family reunification could be acceptable, but made no separate order setting a processing deadline.