The High Court dismissed an Afghan man’s challenge to a rule limiting statutory family reunification for people granted international protection. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 1 February 2019, found that the applicant had not first pursued alternative immigration routes. It also rejected his constitutional and European human-rights arguments on their merits.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as R.C. (Afghanistan), came to Ireland in 2011 after an unsuccessful asylum application in the UK. The court said he applied for protection in Ireland under a false name. He was granted subsidiary protection in January 2016. He later married S.H. by proxy and applied for family reunification for her. The Minister declined to accept the application because the marriage took place after the protection application.
The applicant sought to quash that decision, challenge the constitutionality and Convention compatibility of the relevant statutory provision, and obtain damages. The court upheld the respondents’ argument that the case was premature: the applicant could seek permission for his wife under other immigration routes, including a ministerial policy. The judge said the Minister had discretion to grant permission and should be presumed to act lawfully. The applicant had not shown that this alternative was inadequate.
The court also noted that the Minister had not yet determined whether the proxy marriage could be recognised in Irish law. The judgment said the marriage’s validity and reality could be investigated, including whether the parties had met in person. It did not decide whether proxy marriages should generally be recognised.
Considering the claims in case the prematurity ruling was wrong, the judge found that the timing distinction between people who married before and after applying for protection was not based on a suspect classification. He accepted that the rule served the aim of addressing family separation caused by persecution or serious harm, and concluded that the applicant had not shown the distinction to be unjustified or disproportionate. The existence of another route by which his wife might be admitted also meant the statutory refusal did not, by itself, breach family rights.
The court rejected the Convention challenge, finding the legislation proportionate in light of the stated aims, including preventing immigration fraud and allowing closer scrutiny of marriages formed after a protection application. Damages therefore did not arise. The application was dismissed; the court did not order that the wife be admitted or determine the outcome of any separate immigration application.