The High Court has refused a judicial review application challenging the refusal of visas for children of Bibi Shenaz Domun, who came to Ireland alone in 2009 and left two children in Mauritius in the care of extended family.
Ms Domun applied around September 2016 for visas for the children to join her in Ireland. The applications were refused in July 2017, and the Minister for Justice and Equality told her by letter on 9 January 2018 that an appeal had also failed. Ms Domun and the children sought orders quashing the initial and appeal decisions, requiring a fresh assessment of the appeal, and declarations concerning constitutional and EU rights.
Delivering judgment on 19 November 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett rejected the applicants’ arguments that the Minister had applied the family reunification policy rigidly or allowed its financial thresholds to determine the outcome without considering Ms Domun’s circumstances. The court said the decisions showed that the factors she presented had been considered. It also held that Article 41.2 of the Constitution could not confer immigration rights on non-EU or non-EEA nationals.
The applicants’ complaint that the second-named applicant’s Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights rights had been considered only in general terms had not been raised on appeal and could not be raised at judicial review. The judge added that, even if considered, the argument would have been rejected: the rights had been specifically considered and weighed.
The court also rejected the argument that the Minister had to identify the child’s best interests independently. It said the Minister was generally entitled to consider the matters put to him, and that the child’s best interests were a key consideration, but not the only one. On dependency, the judgment read the policy as automatically treating a minor living with their parents as dependent; a minor not living with their parents would not receive that automatic assumption.
A decisive procedural point was that several independent reasons given for refusing the visas had not been challenged. The judge said those unchallenged reasons meant the decisions had to stand, regardless of the court’s view on the other grounds. He found no allegation or evidence of corruption or partiality that might have undermined decisions despite their other stated grounds. The court also dismissed criticism that the decisions repeated text under different headings.
The court refused all the relief sought. The judgment does not order a fresh assessment or grant visas.