Domun v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 19 November 2018
• Neutral Citation: [2018] IEHC 646
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 268 JR
• Court: High Court
• Date: 19 November 2018

[2018] IEHC 646

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2018 No. 268 JR

Between:

BIBI SHENAZ DOMUN, WAJIH SIDDIQI (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend BIBI SHENAZ DOMUN), IZHAAK SHAMS SUL HACK MYRAM (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend BIBI SHENAZ DOMUN),

AND

SHEEHANE MYRAM (A Minor Suing by her Mother and Next Friend BIBI SHENAZ DOMUN)

Applicants

– AND –

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

AND

IRELAND

Respondents

Visa application – Order of certiorari – Order of mandamus – Applicants seeking an order of certiorari quashing appeal decisions – Whether the decision-making process violated Art. 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann

Facts: The first applicant, Ms Domun, came to Ireland alone in 2009. She left two children in Mauritius in the care of her extended family. Around September 2016, Ms Domun applied for visas for those children to enter Ireland. The visas were refused in July 2017. Appeal was made. By letter of 09.01.2018, the first respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, advised that the appeal was unsuccessful. The applicants sought an order of certiorari quashing the initial/appeal decisions, an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to re-assess the appeal, a declaration that the decision-making process violated Art. 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and a declaration that the refusal to grant visas and the manner in which those decisions were made breached the rights of Ms Domun's youngest child as an Irish/EU citizen.

Held by the High Court (Barrett J) that there was a fatal flaw to the application. He noted that various of the reasons offered in the impugned decisions for those decisions were unchallenged. He held that the inexorable consequence was that the Minister's decisions to refuse the visas must and would stand, regardless of any view that the court had as to such other grounds as had been raised by the applicants; there may be circumstances in which a decision-maker could offer good grounds for a decision but that decision might nonetheless fall, e.g., if the decision-maker was guilty of corruption or partiality, but absolutely nothing of the sort presented or had even been alleged in this case. Barrett J held that the court was confronted with two reasoned decisions, impartially rendered, which offered a variety of independent, stand-alone reasons for refusing the visas, some of which had never been challenged.

Barrett J held that all of the reliefs sought in the application would be refused.

Reliefs refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 19th November, 2018.

1 Ms Domun came to Ireland alone in 2009. She left two children in Mauritius in the care of her extended family. Save for holiday visits, she has not lived with them since. Around September 2016, Ms Domun applied for visas for those children to enter Ireland. The visas were refused in July 2017. Appeal was made. By letter of 09.01.2018, the Minister advised that this appeal was unsuccessful. Various reasons were offered by the Minister for his decisions. The applicants seek an order of certiorari quashing the initial/appeal decisions, an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to re-assess the appeal, a declaration that the decision-making process violated Art.41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and a declaration that the refusal to grant visas and the manner in which those decisions were made breach the rights of Ms Domun's youngest child as an Irish/EU citizen.

2 Article 41. The point raised in respect of Art.41 is that the extent to which the Minister relied on (a) the Department of Justice's Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification (December 2016) and (b) Ms Domun's failure to meet the...