The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s refusal of a teenager’s appeal for a short-stay Irish visa and sent the matter back for fresh consideration. The court did not grant the visa.
The applicant, anonymised because she is a child, was 14 when her parents applied on her behalf in April 2019 for a visit visa to see her family in Ireland. The application was refused in May. An appeal was lodged in July, with further documents submitted in October, but the Minister refused the appeal on 9 December 2019. The applicant was 16 by the time of the judgment.
In his judgment delivered on 30 June 2021, Mr Justice Max Barrett identified several deficiencies in the appeal decision. It referred to an earlier unsuccessful application to join her parents in Ireland, but the judge said past compliance with the law could not logically support an inference that the applicant might fail to comply with visa conditions in future.
The decision also treated the parents’ invitation letter as unsigned. The court accepted that it had been signed and said the decision appeared to hold the supposed absence of a signature against the applicant. The judge also found the decision did not explain why a school letter anticipating a two-week absence, or a letter from the applicant’s grandmother saying she would continue caring for the girl when she returned, was inadequate evidence that she would go home.
The Minister had cited the family’s economic circumstances and the risk of public costs. The judge described the economic reasoning as irrational, noting that the family had previously funded return visits to the third country and that the decision did not explain why they could not fund a visit to Ireland.
The court said it was reviewing the reasons in the decision itself. Deficiencies raised later in a civil servant’s verifying affidavit could not repair gaps in the original decision. It rejected the argument that the applicant’s failure to send a pre-action letter prevented the proceedings, referring to earlier case law.
The court concluded that the decision was unreasonable and disproportionate and ordered it quashed and remitted to the Minister for fresh consideration. It proposed making a costs order in the applicant’s favour, subject to either party raising an objection within 14 days. The judgment anonymised the parties because the applicant was a child.