The Supreme Court has allowed the Minister for Justice’s appeal in a family reunification case, holding that “child” under section 56 of the International Protection Act 2015 means a biological or adopted child of the sponsor. It set aside the High Court order that had quashed the refusal of Mr. X’s application concerning two children and remitted it for fresh consideration.
Mr. X, a Cameroonian national granted subsidiary protection in Ireland, applied to bring a boy and a girl from Cameroon. He had been named as their father on their birth certificates and had obtained sole guardianship under a Cameroonian court order. He said the children lived with his sister in Douala and that he kept in touch and sent money when able. He had also told officials that he had doubts about whether he was their biological father.
The Minister refused the application in May 2018 after Mr. X declined DNA testing, concluding that he had not established the family link. The High Court quashed that decision in May 2019, finding that the statutory term “child” could include a non-biological child and that the Minister had wrongly treated biological parentage as necessary. The Minister appealed to the Supreme Court. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees appeared as a notice party and argued for a broader interpretation.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Dunne on 9 June 2020, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation. It said the ordinary meaning of “child of the sponsor”, read with the legislative history, was limited to biological or adopted children. Earlier rules had expressly included certain dependent relatives, including wards; the 2015 Act did not. The Court said the statutory category was therefore more restrictive.
The Court also held that requesting DNA evidence was reasonable in this case. It noted that Mr. X himself had raised serious doubts about paternity and that the birth certificates and guardianship order did not conclusively establish biological parentage. The Minister could request testing, though not compel it, and could draw an inference from the refusal in these circumstances. Justice Dunne cautioned that DNA testing should not be sought routinely and should be limited to cases of serious doubt.
The Court rejected Mr. X’s argument that he could rely on the repealed 2013 Regulations or on a vested right under them. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s certiorari order. It did not itself grant family reunification; the judgment records that the Minister’s refusal could not be challenged on the grounds advanced.