X v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 03 May 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 284
• Docket Number: 2018 No. 555 JR
• Date: 03 May 2019

Between:

X

APPLICANT

– and –

THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE AND EQUALITY, IRELAND

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

RESPONDENTS

[2019] IEHC 284

2018 No. 555 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Family reunification – International Protection Act s. 56 – Natural parent – Applicant seeking family reunification – Whether s. 56(9)(d) of the International Protection Act 2015 requires that a sponsor be the natural parent of a child

Facts: The applicant, in June 2014, was granted subsidiary protection. He then made application for family unification with a 14-year old boy and 13-year old girl. In February 2016, the first respondent, the Minister for Justice and Equality, asked if the applicant would undergo a DNA test to establish his parentage of the children. The applicant initially agreed, then declined. His change of mind arose, he said, from a fear that his wife may have been unfaithful, that his children may not biologically be his, and that he did not want the pain of discovering that his fears are true. The applicant’s initial application was unsuccessful. Thereafter, fresh application was made on 20.03.2017 for reunification. That application was made under s. 56 of the International Protection Act 2015. By letter of 29.05.2018, the applicant’s later application was refused by way of the ‘Impugned Decision’. The applicant applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing same.

Held by Barrett J that the Minister erred in proceeding on the basis that s. 56(9)(d) of the 2015 Act requires that a sponsor be the natural parent of a child.

Barrett J held that, as the Minister proceeded on a mistaken basis, the court would grant the order of certiorari sought and remit the applicant’s application for fresh consideration.

Order granted.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 3rd May, 2019.

1 In June 2014, Mr X was granted subsidiary protection. He then made application for family unification with a 14-year old boy and 13-year old girl. In February 2016, the Minister asked if Mr X would undergo a DNA test to establish his parentage of the children. Mr X initially agreed, then declined. His change of mind arose, he says, from a fear that his wife may have been unfaithful, that his children may not biologically be his, and (an understandable position) that he does not want the pain of discovering that his fears are true. Mr X's initial application was unsuccessful. Thereafter, following various events that do not require description, fresh application was made on 20.03.2017 for reunification. This application was made under s.56 of the International Protection Act 2015. That the application was so made was agreed between the parties and cannot now be resiled from; there was no parallel application under the EU (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013. (Nor does the court accept that Mr X had a vested right under the 2013 Regulations to seek family reunification; he had but a right to apply for same and did not do so; see VB v. Minister for Justice [2019] IEHC 55, paras.47-49, 52). By letter of 29.05.2018, Mr X's later application was refused by way of the “Impugned Decision”. Mr X now seeks an order of certiorari quashing same. Three key issues arise for consideration; the text of the issues presenting is as drafted by counsel for the Minister.

[1] ‘Does the Applicant have locus standi to challenge the impugned decision…where by letter dated…5th February, 2018, his solicitors said that his application was “based upon the fact that he is the sole legal guardian” of the children, and where he was...