The High Court quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decisions refusing visa appeals for two siblings seeking to join their mother in Ireland, and remitted their applications for reconsideration. The court did not decide that the visas should be granted.
In a judgment delivered on 19 November 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett found several deficiencies in the appeal decisions concerning the applicants, a brother and sister who are Somali nationals living in Ethiopia. Their mother, Nuurto Abdkadir Ahmed, is an Irish citizen. The sister was a minor; the brother was eight days short of his 18th birthday when the applications were submitted.
The applications were lodged on 5 October 2016 and refused by the Irish Embassy in Addis Ababa in May 2017. The Minister refused appeals in October 2017. The High Court’s order quashed those appeal decisions in respect of the second and third-named applicants and sent their applications back to the Minister to reconsider in light of the judgment.
The court said the Minister’s decisions wrongly stated that no medical documents had been provided about the children’s father, although a medical certificate was on file. It also found that the decisions referred to “special circumstances” where the Department’s family reunification policy provided for consideration of “exceptional circumstances”. The judge said the decisions did not adequately explain the conclusion that no such circumstances applied, given the evidence about the family’s situation.
That evidence included the mother’s account that her Irish-resident son has a severe illness and physical disability, and cannot work beyond the limits of his carer’s allowance. A medical registrar treating him wrote that he “would benefit hugely from reunification with his siblings”. The judge said the decision-maker had wrongly and unreasonably disregarded that opinion; it was not contradicted by the consultant’s letter also on file.
The judgment also identified an apparent inconsistency in the decisions’ treatment of money the mother said she had sent to her children. The court said it was open to the decision-maker to find the receipts deficient, but noted that the decisions accepted the household’s sole income was welfare benefits while questioning where the wired money came from. On contact with the children, the judge said it was difficult to count the absence of emails or letters against the mother when she had not claimed to correspond that way. However, in the absence of phone records, it was open to the Minister to find there was no evidence of the regular calls she claimed.
The judge held that the identified administrative-law deficiencies justified quashing the appeal decisions and remitting the applications. The ruling concerned the two applicants’ appeal decisions; it did not grant visas or make an order for other family members.