The Supreme Court allowed the Minister for Justice and Equality’s appeal in a dispute over a Canadian woman’s request to remain in Ireland beyond a two-year Working Holiday Authorisation. The Court held that refusing the extension engaged her right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but that the refusal was justified by the public interest in maintaining the immigration scheme’s rules.
Jaimee Middelkamp entered Ireland under the scheme in 2018. Her husband, Gregory Paul, had come to Ireland on a student visa to study dentistry at University College Cork. Middelkamp worked as a paralegal in the Cork region. Her permission, granted on 31 August 2018, was due to expire on 22 August 2020 and was non-renewable except with special leave from the Minister.
In December 2019, Middelkamp applied under section 4(7) of the Immigration Act 2004 to vary her permission. She said she supported her husband while he studied and wanted to remain in Ireland, including to qualify as a solicitor. The Minister refused the request in January 2020, citing the public policy and common good in maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. A follow-up letter said her Article 8 rights were not affected.
The High Court quashed the refusal in July 2021 and sent the application back for fresh consideration, finding the Minister’s reasons inadequate and that the decision appeared to exclude Article 8 rights. The Minister appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission participated as amicus curiae. The Supreme Court’s judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 1 February 2023.
The Supreme Court found that the refusal could require the couple to live apart for two years while Paul completed his studies, so it interfered with their family life. But it held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Minister could rely on the scheme’s clear two-year limit and the public interest in its consistent application. The Court said Middelkamp had agreed to those terms and had not advanced compelling or special reasons for an exception. It also considered that visits to Ireland as a tourist and other possible immigration routes could mitigate the separation.
The Court concluded that the refusal letter adequately conveyed the Minister’s concerns, even though it did not expressly set out the Article 8 analysis and incorrectly stated that Article 8(1) was not engaged. It allowed the appeal, rejecting the High Court’s decision to quash the Minister’s refusal. The judgment’s conclusion does not order a fresh consideration of the application.