The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to the refusal of a passport application for a child born in Ireland to a mother with subsidiary protection.
The child, identified in the judgment as T.R.I., was born in the State in September 2019. His mother, L.B., applied for a passport in August 2021, relying on a provision of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 that applies to a child born in Ireland where a parent was entitled to reside in the State without restriction on the period of residence.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs refused the application in November 2022. The stated basis was that the provision did not cover a parent with subsidiary protection. The child sought to quash that decision, arguing that the mother’s residence permission was renewable and therefore open-ended. At the hearing, the applicant did not pursue a separate argument that the Minister had fettered his discretion.
In a judgment delivered on 21 February 2024, Ms Justice Bolger rejected the applicant’s interpretation. She said renewal under section 54 of the International Protection Act 2015 was conditional: it depended on the person retaining subsidiary protection and was subject to compelling reasons of national security or public order. The permissions were for specified periods of at least three years, rather than an unrestricted period of residence.
The applicant relied on a Court of Appeal decision concerning a person with subsidiary protection seeking to enlist in the Reserve Defence Forces. The judge said that case did not establish an open-ended right of residence for the purpose of the citizenship provision. She distinguished the military-service issue from a claim to citizenship by right, which she described as a status the State cannot revoke.
The court also rejected reliance on information from the Minister’s website as a guide to the meaning of the statute. It said the website referred to routes based on reckonable residence, which were distinct from the claim being decided.
Justice Bolger concluded that the mother’s residence permission was restricted in time and that the Minister could treat the child as outside the relevant statutory provision. She refused the application. The judgment said the matter would return to court on 13 March 2024 for final orders; it did not specify those orders.