The High Court quashed two decisions refusing refugee family reunification, finding that the decisions did not show a proportionate assessment of the applicants’ circumstances and the rights of their family members. The Minister must consider both applications afresh.
The cases, heard together, concerned a Somali refugee seeking permission for his mother and surviving siblings to join him, and an Afghan refugee seeking permission for his father to join him. The Somali applicant’s wife had already been granted permission. The Afghan applicant’s application for his spouse had also been granted.
Under section 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996, the Minister has discretion to permit other dependent family members to enter and reside in Ireland. The court said the decision makers accepted that the relatives were family members and dependants. They refused the applications after concluding that the applicants could not support the relatives in Ireland and that the relatives would become an unreasonable burden on the social welfare system.
The respondents accepted that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged. The applicants’ counsel argued that the decisions lacked a necessary proportionality assessment and suggested the Minister had adopted a fixed policy or an unlawful sponsorship test. The respondents contested those claims.
Justice Cross found that the decisions gave no indication of separate consideration for relatives with differing circumstances, including elderly or ill family members and a 14-year-old sibling. Although the supporting documents, including medical information, had been considered when assessing identity, relationship and dependency, the discretion section addressed only the likelihood of a burden on the State. The court said the economic circumstances of the State were relevant, but taking account of that single factor did not show a fair or proportionate balancing of rights.
The judge did not find that the Minister had adopted a fixed policy or a sponsorship requirement, and said it was unnecessary to decide those issues. He rejected the challenge to delegating the decisions to an executive officer. The court granted an order of certiorari in each case, setting aside both refusals and requiring the Minister to reconsider the applications. It did not direct that permission be granted.