The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by a child born in Ireland whose mother held subsidiary protection, ruling that her residence status did not qualify him for birthright citizenship under the relevant exception in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
The case concerned section 6A(2)(d)(i), which exempts a child from the usual parental residence requirement where a parent was entitled, at the time of the child’s birth, to reside in the State without any restriction on the period of residence. The child, identified in the judgment as TRI, was born in Ireland in autumn 2019. His mother applied for an Irish passport for him in August 2021. The Minister for Foreign Affairs refused the application in November 2022, taking the view that the exception did not apply to a person with subsidiary protection.
The High Court refused to quash that decision. TRI appealed directly to the Supreme Court. His side argued that the mother’s residence permission was effectively open-ended because the International Protection Act 2015 required it to be renewable. The Ministers argued that it remained conditional: the permission ended if she ceased to qualify for subsidiary protection, and renewal could also be refused for compelling reasons of national security or public order.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2025, Ms Justice Donnelly said the statutory phrase covered more than a fixed time limit. In the immigration context, a residence period can also be restricted by a condition that the person maintain a particular status. The relevant exception applies to residence that is, on its face, without a time limit or condition, and is putatively permanent.
The Court held that a person with subsidiary protection has a right to reside for a period of at least three years, renewable while they remain entitled to that protection. Because the residence permission ceases if that entitlement ends, it is conditional and does not meet the section 6A exception. The Court also said its decision was limited to people declared refugees or eligible for subsidiary protection; it did not determine how the provision applies to programme refugees.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment resolved the statutory interpretation issue in this appeal; it did not grant the passport sought.