The case hinged on the rights of those already in receipt of Irish citizenship status to also claim to be refugees for the purposes of family reunification.
Naturalisation
The parties involved had become Irish citizens by naturalisation prior to the family reunification application, and, the Minister held, not therefore entitled to family reunification rights as a refugee.
The Minister’s argument was that a refugee who becomes naturalised is no longer deemed to be a refugee as they are not outside their country of nationality, when that country becomes Ireland.
The outcome will see KN and MAM able to seek family reunification through the formal process, and the Supreme Court also acknowledged that this judgment may also work to the benefit of 50 other applicants in similar circumstances.
The Minister had refused MAM family reunification with her husband, and KN was denied family reunification with her adult daughter and two granddaughters.
The Court rejected the Minister for Justice's interpretation of the Refugee Act 1996, and said such an interpretation would lead to “substantial legislative uncertainty when the purpose of the act was to achieve clarity.
Procedure
“The case advanced would run counter to the legislative aim of the Oireachtas, which was, by a carefully devised procedure defined in the Act, to identify one definitive “mark” of recognition to persons who were entitled to refugee status in this State, which, in turn, would grant them benefits and entitlements,” it continues.
“This judgement concludes that the fact that the appellants became citizens did not deprive them of the right to apply for family reunification under s.18 of the 1996 Act.”
The ruling reversed previous judgments of the Court of Appeal and High Court.
It also recognised the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on the rights of refugees to family unity.
Interpretation
The Supreme Court notes that its interpretation of the Refugee Act in this judgment is more in keeping with State duties towards the family as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Previous decisions during 2017 and 2018, to refuse applications for family reunification because the sponsors were refugees who had naturalised as Irish citizens, are also now deemed unlawful.
Exercising its role as amicus curiae, IHREC’s legal submissions to the Supreme Court focused on the right to family unity as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), submitting that acquiring nationality of the country of refugee, does not extinguish a right to family unity in that country.
The Commission argued that the Minister’s refusal to allow MAM and KN’s close family to come to Ireland breached rights under the Constitution (Article 40 and Article 41) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Article 8) in relation to the rights of family and its members, and the State’s obligation to protect these rights.
A right of refugees
Dr Frank Conaty, acting chief commissioner of the IHREC, said: “The Commission welcomes the recognition of the Strasbourg Court rulings in this judgment, clarifying that family unity is a right of refugees, and an essential element in enabling persons who have fled persecution to resume a normal life.
“The Commission hopes that the Irish Government pays due regard to this judgment in future legislative arrangements.
“The Commission has consistently expressed serious concern over legislative changes introduced in 2015 which have narrowed access to family reunification for people granted international protection.”