The Supreme Court has upheld the family reunification rights of a Somali refugee following a decision from the Minister for Justice refusing entry to his mother and sister. The Supreme Court ruled that general economic consequences of family reunification could be taken into account by the Minister. The Court unanimously upheld an order quashing the decision of the Ministers refusal on the basis that it was disproportionate on the facts of the case.
Mr S was declared a refugee in 2009. He applied to the Minister for Justice to allow several family members to come to Ireland under the family reunification rights of s.18 of the Refugee Act 1996. The Minister rejected his application on the basis that Ireland was going through difficult financial circumstances and that to allow his family to enter the country would pose a burden on the State, through its social welfare system, health system and other public services.
In the High Court, MacEochaigh J said that an application for family reunification could not be rejected solely on financial considerations and as a result quashed the decision of the Minister to refuse entry to his mother and youngest sister.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong in its assessment and that the Minister can consider the economic consequences of admitting family members to enter and reside in the State. However, the Supreme Court found that based on the individual facts in this case, the decision was not proportionate.
Under s.18, dependent family members gain a special enhanced status and the Supreme Court advised that significant weight must be attached to this policy. The State also has significant discretion in all immigration matters but that must be balanced with the family rights of all persons. The Minister does enjoy a margin of appreciation in weighing the factors which favour and oppose the grant of discretionary family reunification and this balance must be proportionately exercised.
The Court was satisfied that the balancing in this particular case was clearly wrong. There were no considerations beyond general economic considerations of all family reunification applications, such as non-financial dependency, and the financial consequences of admitting two persons, as in this case, would have been limited.
The Court held that it was unreasonable of the Minister to deny the application for family reunification. The Supreme Court overruled the reasoning of the High Court however on the facts of the case it dismissed the appeal of the Minister and upheld the order which quashed the decision of the Minister to reject the application for family reunification.
Click here to read the full judgment of AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality [2014] IESC 65