AMS v Minister for Justice and Equality

Last updated

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality
Coat of arms of Ireland.svg
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court Supreme Court of Ireland
Decided20 November 2014
Citation(s)[2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65
Case history
Appealed fromHigh Court
Appealed toSupreme Court
Court membership
Judges sittingDenham C.J., [Murray J., Hardiman J., Clarke J., [Dunne J.
Case opinions
It was held that Section 18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 allows the Minister for Justice and Equality to assess the financial burden that a refugees qualified dependants will put on the State, in regard to the application for their entry.
Decision byMr. Justice Clarke
Keywords
  • Immigration
  • Refugee Status
  • Family Reunification
  • Judicial Review Proceedings
  • Refugee Act, 1996, sec 18
  • Proportionality of discretion
  • Economic considerations

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2015] 1 ILRM 170; [2014] IESC 65, was an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court held that Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 [1] allowed the Minister of Justice to assess the potential financial strain that a refugee's dependents would place on the State while deciding on an application for entry. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

Background

Irish law allows the possibility of family reunification cases. [5] A family member of a refugee in Ireland may apply to this provision. There are two classes of members identified by legislation: Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996. [6] Section 18(3) states that automatic entitlement to the reunification is granted to spouses, unmarried minors and parents of minor refugees. [1] Section 18(4) of the Act, states that in the case of family members outside of the mentioned scope, there is discretion in awarding reunification. [1] The case of Ams v Minister for Justice [4] deals with the latter, family members falling outside of Section 18(3) [1] provision.

Mr. S, a Somalian citizen born in 1985, arrived in Ireland seeking asylum in May 2007 and was granted refugee status in January 2009. Mr. S applied to the Minister of Justice, under Section 18 of the Act, seeking family reunification for: his wife, mother, daughter, two of his sisters, and two brothers. Mr. S completed the necessary application forms without the assistance of a Lawyer. In his application, Mr.S stated that he and his mentioned family members, had lived as one unit in Somalia. He said that his family members were living in a refugee camp in Mogadishu. While he was completing a questionnaire, Mr. S failed to answer a question "seeking information on financial dependency on the part of the relevant family members towards him". [7] Mr. S said that the mentioned family members were unemployed at the time of his application. He said that he was looking for a job, which would provide for him and his family members. He did not reply to a question on social welfare benefits. From this information, a report was drafted and given to the Minister of Justice on September 1, 2009, after having been considered by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC).

In early 2010, Mr. S received the news that his daughter and one of his brothers had died in a bomb attack while the family were leaving the refugee camp in Mogadishu, heading towards the Ethiopian border. Mr. S obtained a solicitor the same year. The solicitor provided the Minister with additional documents in support of Mr. S's application of family reunification. The Minister was informed that Mr. S's family was undocumented in Ethiopia, and renting an apartment in Addis Ababa. The family were receiving financial aid from Mr. S. The Minister was informed of Mr. S's mother's deteriorating health. His mother suffered from hypertension, chronic liver disease, chronic rheumatism, dementia and depression.

In 2011 Mr. S's solicitor wrote to the Minister, seeking a decision be issued within eight days. The Minister replied that he required more information to come to a decision. On May 4, 2011, Mr. S was granted the reunification for his wife, as according to Section 18(3) of the Act. However, the reunification was denied to the remaining family members. Due to Section 18(4) of the Act. The denied family members applied a second time, following a second denial decision made July 2012. There were Judicial Review proceedings brought forward in order to reverse the second denial. These reviews were in relation to Mr. S's mother and little sister. These were a success in A.M.S. v. Minister for Justice and Equality †[2014] IEHC 57. [7] This case is an appeal of that decision, by the Appellant (the Minister).

It was established that the Mr. S's mother and sister were financially dependent on Mr. S. However, due to Mr.S's only income being his social welfare payments the Minister deemed that the reunification would be a financial burden to the State.

Issues

The first issue relevant to this appeal concerns the determination of the proper interpretation of Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996. The second issue is in regards to the question of proportionality. The principle of proportionality must have been applied by the Minister in his refusing the family reunification of Mr. S's family members. [8]

Holding of the Supreme Court

The judgement was delivered by Clarke, J. He said that Section18(4) of the Act provides the Minister with discretion in considering cases, during the assessment of a refugee's application for family reunification. The Minister was found to have the power to decide whether or not the refugee's dependents would prove to be a financial burden on the State. The main issue was the proportionality of the Minister's discretion. The Court found the Ministers' 'balancing exercise' [7] to be wrong, and his appeal was dismissed.

The Court therefore, overruled MacEochaigh J's decision. [9] The court held it was not within the Ministers' power to decide whether a reunification would result in a financial burden on the State: "However, again for the reasons set out in this judgment, I am satisfied that MacEochaidh J. was correct to conclude that the decision of the Minister to refuse family reunification in respect of the mother and the minor sister of Mr. S was disproportionate on the facts of this case. No wider financial consequences other than those applicable to just those persons were taken into account." [7]

Subsequent Developments

Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality judgement overturned an earlier decision: Hassan, [10] which decided that the Minister has the power to deny an application where the applicant is found to not have future means to support his dependants, without State intervention. [8] This judgement established that each case must be assessed independently. [8]

Related Research Articles

The Family Home Protection Act of 1976 is an Act of the Oireachtas which regulates an aspect of property law in Ireland and prevents the sale, partial sale, mortgage or re-mortgage of a property which is defined as a family home under the terms of the Act without the knowledge and consent of both spouses therein residing. A family home under the terms of the Act is a dwelling which is the ordinary residence of a married couple. The effect of the act is that, although the property may be in the registered ownership of one spouse only, this spouse cannot carry out transactions concerning the property – which could lead to the loss of the family home – without the other spouse's knowledge and consent.

<i>Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Adam v The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 38 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court, in which the Court, in affirming High Court orders to strike out two judicial review proceedings as frivolous, held that, to challenge the decision of a public authority, one must attempt to rely on proved individual circumstances.

<i>Callan v Ireland & The Attorney General</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Callan v Ireland& The Attorney General, [2013] IESC 35; [2013] IR 267; [2013] ILRM 257, was an Irish Supreme Court case which ruled on the decision to commute the sentence of death imposed on Callan to penal servitude for 40 years without allowing for remission. Noel Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 but had his sentence commuted to 40 years of penal servitude by the President of Ireland, Patrick Hillery. The High Court rejected Callan's appeal that he was eligible for remission. Callan then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Callan was indeed serving imprisonment and so by law could request remission of his penalty.

<i>Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice</i>

Sivsivadze v Minister for Justice[2015] IESC 53; [2015] 2 ILRM 73; [2016] 2 IR 403 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, under which the Minister for Justice order the deportation of a non-national for an indefinite period.

Max Barrett is an Irish judge who has served as a Judge of the High Court since January 2014.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Dolny[2009] IESC 48, was an Irish Supreme Court case. The court found that a European extradition can be applied if the offense is very similar to an offense in Irish statute.

<i>De Roiste v Minister for Defence</i> Irish Supreme Court case

De Róiste v Minister for Defence, [2001] 1 IR190, [2001] IESC 4; [2001] 2 ILRM 241, was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the extended delay in bringing forward an action was grounds for dismissal of charges.

<i>P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

P., L., & B. v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2001] IESC 107, [2002] 1 ILRM 16 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that refusal of an application for asylum may constitute a sufficient basis for the government to order the applicant's deportation.

<i>Dimbo v Minister for Justice</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

The case of Dimbo v Minister for Justice[2008] IESC 26; [2008] 27 ILT 231; [2008] 5 JIC 0101 was a Supreme Court that held that when deciding to make a deportation order in relation to the parents of an Irish born citizen under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999, the state must consider facts that are specific to the individual child, his or her age, current educational progress, development and opportunities and his/her attachment to the community.

<i>McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions</i> Irish Supreme Court case

McFarlane v. Director of Public Prosecutions[2008] IESC 7; [2008] 2 I.R. 117 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial under both Article 38.1 of the Constitution and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude prosecution in cases of prosecutorial delay unless the accused can demonstrate either that some specific prejudice resulted or that the delay was well outside the norm for the particular proceedings.

<i>N.V.H v Minister for Justice & Equality</i> Irish Supreme Court case

N.H.V. v Minister for Justice & Equality [2017] IESC 35 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a challenge to the absolute prohibition on employment of asylum seekers contained in Section 9(4) of the Refugee Act 1996 and held it to be contrary to the constitutional right to seek employment.

<i>Wansboro v. DPP and anor</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Wansboro v. DPP and anor, [2017] IESCDET 115 is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that granting 'leapfrog' leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court under Art. 34.5.4 of the Constitution of Ireland may be appropriate where the (intermediate) Court of Appeal has already clearly taken a view on the issues raised by the applicant.

<i>AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors</i> Irish Supreme Court case

AAA & Anor v Minister for Justice & Ors, [2017] IESC 80, was an Irish Supreme Court case which arose from the judgment delivered by Cooke J in the High Court on 17 May 2012, due to the fact that the applicant AAA and her children were deported to Nigeria in 2011. The court held that "as a rule" there is no right to an oral hearing in an application for leave to remain on humanitarian grounds and subsidiary protection where there has already been oral hearings in relation to an application for asylum. This decision clarified the grounds under which a claim for subsidiary protection could be heard.

<i>Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Z. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform[2002] IESC 14, [2002]; 2 ILRM 215 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the absence of an oral hearing need not infringe the right of an applicant for refugee status to natural and constitutional justice.

<i>A (a Minor) v Minister for Justice and Equality and others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

A v Minister for Justice and Equality, Refugee Applications Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney General[2013] IESC 18, (2013) 2 ILRM 457 is an Irish Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court concluded that a certificate of leave to appeal was not required in order to appeal to the Supreme Court a decision of the High Court to dismiss proceedings as frivolous or vexatious.

<i>Okunade v. Minister for Justice & Others</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Okunade v. Minister for Justice & Others[2012] IESC 49 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the disruption to family life was sufficient injustice to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain deportation while the applicants challenged pending deportation orders. The case had become moot by the time that the appeal reached the Supreme Court but proceeded as a test case because the issue of interlocutory injunctions arises in a significant number of Supreme Court cases.

<i>Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Murphy, [2010] IESC 17; [2010] 3 IR 77, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that inpatient treatment with a restriction order attached to it in a European Arrest Warrant came within the meaning of "detention order" in s.10(d) of the European Warrant Act 2003. This gave the definition of "detention order" a wide meaning. The case involved an appeal against extradition to the United Kingdom.

<i>Child and Family Agency (formerly Health Service Executive) v O.A.</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

Child and Family Agency v O.A. [2015] IESC 52, also known as Child and Family Agency (Tusla) v OA, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision. It was decided that parents should not get an order for costs in the District Court unless there are specific elements in the case at hand. The Supreme Court set up these specific points and ruled that the Circuit Court should only overturn District Court decisions if they do not follow the principles and criteria set out.

<i>T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform</i> Supreme Court of Ireland case

T.D v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform [2014] IESC 29; [2014] 4 IR 277 is a reported Irish Supreme Court case decision, where the court considered if Section 5(2) of the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 was similar to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 "Irish Statute Book". Irish Statute Book.
  2. ↑ "The Court of Justice moves up the gears in enforcing the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the field of social policy". Irish Employment Law Journal 2019. 16 (1): 25–30. 2019 – via Westlaw IE.
  3. ↑ Murphy, Keire (2019). "Small Happy Family?: An analysis of Irish Family Reunification Law as it Applies to Beneficiaries of International Protection". Trinity College Law Review 2019. 22 (1): 173–188 – via Westlaw IE.
  4. 1 2 [2014] IESC 65
  5. ↑ Citizensinformation.ie. "International protection and family reunification". www.citizensinformation.ie. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  6. ↑ Book (eISB), electronic Irish Statute. "electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB)". www.irishstatutebook.ie. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Ams v. Minister for Justice and Equality †[2014] IEHC 57.
  8. 1 2 3 "Ams v Minister for Justice and Equality" . Retrieved 1 November 2019.
  9. ↑ Joyce, C. and Whelan, S., 2015. Annual policy report on migration and asylum 2014: Ireland. European Migration Network, Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.
  10. ↑ Hassan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2013] IESC 8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.