White v Bar Council of Ireland
 IEHC 201
THE HIGH COURT
[2017 No. 259 J.R.]
Asylum, Immigration & Nationality – S.3 of the Immigration Act 1999 – Leave to remain in State – Delay
The above mentioned five applicants, being two parents and three children, applied for leave to seek an order of mandamus against the respondent directing the respondent to issue a decision in respect of the applicants' application for leave to remain in the State pursuant to s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, by virtue of an ex parte docket of 15th March, 2017.
The proposed statement of grounds is dated 15th March, 2017 and identifies that the parents are Mauritian nationals who were married in 2005 and came to Ireland January, 2007 both having student visas which expired 2nd March, 2012. The three children were born in Ireland.
Enquiries were made by the applicants as to securing a further visa in or about August, 2012 and ultimately a series of communications was entered into commencing on 2nd December, 2012. These communications to the respondent were for stamp 4 permission, permission pursuant to s. 4(7) of the 2004 Act and various requests of the respondent to issue a notice under s. 3 of the 1999 Act so as to enable the applicants to make representations to the respondent on a humanitarian basis. During the currency of this exchange evidence was afforded that the husband had a job offer (a letter of 7th October, 2015) and the delay in regularising their status had an adverse impact on the wife's health – a medical report was submitted under cover letter on 3rd March, 2016.
In the events the relevant s. 3 letter issued from the respondent on 25th May, 2016 and representations were made on behalf of the applicants on 15th June, 2016. Subsequently three further letters were sent each affording the Minister 28 days within which to make a decision. Included was a letter of 8th December, 2016 wherein the applicants sought priority for their application.
In a letter of 26th January, 2017 the respondent indicated that the applicants were among many to be considered by the respondent at that time and accordingly it was not possible to...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL