Member Login

No breach of family rights of Ukrainian national and her Irish citizen aunt in refusal of visa

By: James Cross BL

or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments

High Court refuses judicial review of the Minister for Justice's refusal of an appeal against a decision refusing a Ukrainian national a visa to enter and reside in the State with her aunt, a naturalised Irish citizen, on the grounds that the Minister lawfully considered and weighed the constitutional and Convention rights of the applicant and her aunt.

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Ukrainian national challenging the decision refusing the appeal against the refusal to grant her a visa to enter and reside in Ireland – proposed to join her aunt and sponsor who was a naturalised Irish citizen - taken over parental responsibility for the niece - insufficient documentation had been submitted in support of the application - since the Ukraine is not a signatory to the Hague Adoption Convention, the applicant’s adoption of the niece in the Ukraine could not be recognised under Irish law - applicant had been unable to submit to the Minister a copy of the appropriate ‘Certificate of Eligibility and Suitability’, required by the Adoption Authority of Ireland – no extenuating circumstances - review decision – procedural history – relevant caselaw and statutory provisions - grounds of challenge – argued that rights available to the niece are more extensive than they might otherwise be because her aunt is married – argued she is entitled to invoke the family rights enshrined in Arts. 41 and 42 of the Constitution in respect of their relationship - nature and extent of the family rights available - whether the Minister failed to take those rights properly into consideration in the review decision - Minister had not wrongly neglected to consider the applicant’s constitutional rights - nothing in the consideration document that suggests that any aspect of her family relationship with her niece was disregarded or overlooked by the Minister in the context of the review - nothing in the review in this case to suggest that the Minister failed to apply the proper test to the assessment of the nature and extent of the applicant’s ‘family life’ - errors of law or fact - no breach of the Minister’s obligation to consider the best interests of the child in this case – proportionality - has not shown that the decision was disproportionate – judicial review refused.

Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *