The High Court has refused an Irish citizen’s challenge to the refusal of his proposal to bring his four adult children to Ireland under the Humanitarian Admission Programme, finding that he had not secured accommodation for them for 12 months after arrival. The court also ordered him to pay the Minister for Justice’s costs.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as HMW, was born in Somalia and became a naturalised Irish citizen in September 2016. His wife and six children, four of them adults, were living in Ethiopia after fleeing Somalia. In January 2020, the Minister approved his proposal in respect of his wife and two minor children but refused it for the four adult children because of a lack of accommodation.
HMW sought judicial review, arguing that the decision was irrational and unreasonable, breached fair procedures and was disproportionate. The court rejected each ground. The judgment concerns only the refusal relating to the four adult children; it does not reconsider the successful proposal for the other family members.
The court found that the scheme required beneficiaries to have an established place to live when they arrived. Where they would not live with the proposer, the scheme required evidence that accommodation elsewhere would be available for at least 12 months. The judge held that this was a condition for using the scheme, even though its guidance also said that people able to accommodate family members would be prioritised.
HMW had told the Minister that his home did not have enough space. His landlord had written that he would “endeavour” to provide accommodation if the proposal succeeded. The Minister contacted the landlord, who said there was not enough space for the four adult children. The judgment records that HMW was not told about the contact or given a chance to respond to the information.
The court nevertheless found no breach of fair procedures. It said HMW knew the accommodation requirement from the published scheme and from an earlier unsuccessful proposal. He had not secured accommodation or provided documents establishing a place for his adult children to live for 12 months. The judge said the Minister was not required to discuss that failure with him.
The judge also rejected the proportionality argument, finding that HMW had not complied with the scheme’s conditions. Although an earlier recommendation was to grant the proposal subject to an accommodation check, the court said the Minister was entitled to refuse it once the check showed accommodation was unavailable. The relief sought was refused, and costs were awarded to the respondent.