The Court of Appeal has allowed the Minister for Justice’s appeal against a High Court ruling that quashed the refusal of long-stay visas sought for four children to join their mother in Ireland. It set aside the High Court judgment and order. The visa refusals therefore stand; the Court of Appeal did not grant visas or direct a fresh decision on the applications.
The children, identified in the judgment as the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants, are Somali nationals who were living in Somalia. Their mother, the first applicant, had moved to Ireland in October 2021. Their aunt, the second applicant, is an Irish citizen and had previously been recognised as a refugee. The applications were made under the Minister’s discretionary family-reunification policy, not under the aunt’s statutory refugee-family-reunification rights.
The visa appeals were refused in April 2022. The appeals officer found that the applicants had not shown the required dependency on their aunt, that neither proposed sponsor had demonstrated sufficient financial resources, and that the applications did not establish exceptional humanitarian circumstances warranting a departure from the policy. The officer also cited concerns about supporting documents and the absence of the father’s consent or a court order giving the mother sole custody.
The High Court quashed the refusals in June 2023, finding the decisions irrational and unfair. It considered that the decision maker had not properly engaged with circumstances put forward as exceptional, including the family’s history and the children’s situation after their mother came to Ireland.
In the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Allen said the High Court had gone beyond judicial review by accepting assertions that the visa appeals officer had found unsupported and by substituting its own assessment of the applications. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Minister had considered the relevant factors and was entitled to find that exceptional humanitarian circumstances had not been established. It also held that the mother had not provided a cogent explanation or supporting evidence for the absence of the father’s consent or a sole-custody order.
The court made a provisional indication that the applicants should pay costs in both courts because the Minister had succeeded. It left open a short further hearing if the applicants wished to argue for a different costs order.