The Supreme Court dismissed the Minister for Justice’s appeal in a citizenship case, ruling that permission granted to an infant applicant’s father began on 7 July 2005, when the Minister decided to let him remain in Ireland. It did not begin only when an immigration officer later stamped his passport.
The ruling meant the father had more than the three years of reckonable residence required under section 6A of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 before his son was born on 24 August 2008. The court said this was sufficient for the applicant to succeed. It did not need to decide when the father’s renewed permission took effect in 2007.
The father, Fatai Ayimla Sulaimon, had arrived in Ireland in 2001. He received permission to remain under the Irish Born Child scheme in July 2005, after the birth of an Irish citizen daughter. His son was born to him and another partner in August 2008. An application for an Irish passport for the boy was refused in October 2008 because the Department counted 1,092 days of lawful residence before the birth, three days short of the statutory minimum of 1,095. The Supreme Court was told during the appeal that the father had since become an Irish citizen.
The dispute concerned whether the period of reckonable residence started with the Minister’s decision or with the subsequent passport stamp. A letter dated 7 July 2005 said the Minister had decided to grant permission for two years, until 7 July 2007. It also said the letter was not itself evidence of permission and directed the father to register. His passport was stamped on 22 July 2005.
The Minister argued that the formal permission took effect only when an immigration officer recorded it. The court rejected that interpretation. Justice O’Donnell said the law recognised separate routes by which the Minister or an immigration officer could grant permission, and did not prescribe a particular formality for a ministerial grant. Registration and a passport stamp could record or evidence permission already given.
The court relied in part on a departmental file that identified 7 July 2005 as the date permission had been granted. It also found that the wording of the letter indicated that the permission began on that date. Counting residence from then gave the father more than 1,095 days before his son’s birth.
Justice O’Donnell described the 2007 renewal correspondence as confusing, including its statement that the renewal would take effect only upon registration. The court did not resolve that issue because it was unnecessary to the outcome. It dismissed the Minister’s appeal.