The High Court has quashed a decision refusing family reunification to a Somali refugee’s adult sister and three children of his deceased brother, and sent the application back to the Minister for reconsideration.
Mr Justice Cooke ruled on 25 March 2011 that the reasons given for the refusal were unclear about whether the relatives qualified as dependent family members under section 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996, or whether the Minister was refusing permission through the separate exercise of discretion under that provision.
The applicant had received refugee status in Ireland in April 2008. He applied in April 2009 to bring his five children, his sister and his late brother’s two nephews and niece to Ireland. His five children were later granted permission to enter, followed by family reunification. The judicial review concerned only his sister and the three children, who were living in Ethiopia.
The applicant said he had supported the relatives in Somalia and Ethiopia through money transfers, and that they relied on the money for food and shelter. The judgment records transfers generally ranging from US$100 to US$400, with one US$1,000 remittance, between about March 2008 and early 2010. The applicant was seriously ill, unable to work and receiving disability benefit.
Under section 18(4), the Minister may grant permission to a dependent family member, including a sibling or a ward, but the provision does not guarantee permission once the required family relationship and dependence are established. The court said the Minister must first decide whether the applicants meet the statutory definition as a matter of fact. The Minister may then consider the refugee’s ability to support and maintain them in Ireland when deciding whether to grant permission.
The court found that the decision memorandum questioned whether the transfers established dependence, while also concluding that the applicant lacked sufficient income and resources to support the relatives in Ireland. It was unclear whether that financial-capacity point had been used to decide that the relatives were not dependent, or as a reason to refuse permission after accepting that they qualified. The court said the first approach would involve an error of law; the second could be relevant to the Minister’s discretion.
The court did not decide that the relatives were dependent or that they must be admitted to Ireland. It quashed the refusal because the uncertainty warranted reconsideration, while confirming that the Minister could take the applicant’s medical and financial circumstances into account when exercising discretion.