The High Court has refused Shafi Afzaly's challenge to a decision denying admission to Ireland for his parents and sister under the Afghan Admission Programme.
Mr Justice Barr held that the Minister for Justice acted lawfully when applying closer scrutiny to whether Mr Afzaly had sufficient resources to support the three proposed beneficiaries. The judge found that this did not introduce a new requirement or breach Mr Afzaly's constitutional right to equal treatment.
Mr Afzaly, an Afghan national who was granted subsidiary protection in Ireland in 2018, applied under the humanitarian programme in March 2022 for his parents, sister and brother. He was then earning about €18,000 annually and living with his family in a two-bedroom rented house in Lucan. By the time of the appeal decision in December 2024, his income had increased to about €23,000 a year.
His brother left Afghanistan while the application remained undecided and is presumed to have drowned in June 2024 while attempting to reach Gran Canaria from Mauritania. The remaining application concerned Mr Afzaly's parents and sister.
The Minister refused their applications in October 2024, with an appeal dismissed on 6 December. The decision said greater scrutiny of sponsors' finances had become necessary after officials learned that some people admitted under the programme had subsequently relied on State accommodation or welfare.
Mr Afzaly argued that earlier sponsors with fewer financial resources had been approved and that delays in deciding his application meant he faced a stricter standard.
The court rejected that argument. It accepted evidence that applications were individually assessed across a range of factors and found that selected comparisons with earlier successful cases did not establish that a lower financial threshold had previously applied.
Mr Justice Barr also found that the programme's financial condition had existed from the outset and that, on Mr Afzaly's income and circumstances, there was no realistic case that he could support his own household and three additional beneficiaries without State assistance.
The reliefs sought were refused, with final orders and costs left for a later hearing.