AS v The Minister for Justice (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of Bangladesh born in June 2003, entered the State from the Hellenic Republic on 30 July 2021 and applied for international protection. Prior to that, the Applicant had entered the Hellenic Republic in 2019 as an unaccompanied minor and applied for international protection there. The Applicant's sister, an Irish citizen residing in the State with her family, was verified as capable and willing to care for him. Following investigations and verification including DNA testing and social work reports, the State accepted responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation to examine the Applicant’s international protection claim and arranged his transfer from the Hellenic Republic to the State. The transfer was delayed due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, and by the time of arrival, the Applicant was an adult.

The Applicant challenges a decision dated 17 June 2022, which recommended refusal of permission to remain in the State. He also appeals recommendations refusing refugee status and subsidiary protection through a separate process. The judicial review is limited to grounds set out in the statement dated 18 July 2022. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding no significant error in the decision-maker’s reasoning or disregard of relevant material.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision-maker failed to adequately consider the significance and circumstances of the Applicant’s transfer to the State as humanitarian or relevant considerations under the statutory criteria.
2. Whether the decision-maker failed to consider the social workers’ report from The Child and Family Agency, which recommended the Applicant’s relocation to the State was in his best interests.
3. Whether the decision-maker erred in assessing the existence of a "relationship of dependency" between the Applicant and his sister relevant to Article 8 family life rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
4. The proper application and scope of the statutory discretion under Section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 regarding permission to stay after refusal of refugee status or subsidiary protection.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended that the statutory decision-maker did not adequately address the humanitarian significance of his transfer to the State.
• He argued that the decision-maker failed to consider the social workers’ report, which found it was in his best interests to live with his sister in the State.
• The Applicant asserted that the decision-maker did not properly consider whether a relationship of dependency existed between him and his sister, which could engage rights under Article 8 ECHR.
• The Applicant criticized the omission of the social workers’ report in the reasoning for refusing permission to stay, claiming it was a significant factor.

Respondent's Arguments

• The decision-maker was aware of the Applicant’s circumstances, including representations made by his solicitors and the social workers’ conclusions, even if not specifically referenced in the decision.
• The social workers’ report was relevant only to the decision to accept responsibility for the Applicant as a minor under the Dublin III Regulation and had no bearing on the permission to stay decision after refusal of protection.
• Information that does not materially affect the statutory criteria need not be mentioned or considered in the decision-making process.
• The decision-maker properly considered the statutory criteria under Section 49(3) of the International Protection Act 2015, including family and humanitarian considerations, and found no basis to recommend permission to stay.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that judicial review requires demonstration of a significant error capable of invalidating the decision under challenge. The Court found no such error in the decision-maker’s reasoning. The social workers’ report, while relevant to the decision to accept responsibility under the Dublin III Regulation for an unaccompanied minor, was not material to the statutory criteria for permission to stay after refusal of protection. The decision-maker’s omission to specifically mention this report did not amount to disregard of relevant material as it contained no information bearing on criteria such as humanitarian considerations or family life under Section 49(3) of the International Protection Act 2015.

The Court acknowledged that the Applicant’s presence in the State and the development of familial bonds with his sister and her family were relevant factors to be considered in the permission to stay decision. However, the circumstances of the transfer itself and the social workers’ earlier best interests assessment did not translate into a legal obligation to treat the Applicant as a minor or to grant him special status. The decision-maker properly assessed the Applicant’s situation as a young adult and applied the statutory criteria accordingly.

The Court concluded that the State’s interest in controlling immigration and the common good justified the decision to refuse permission to stay in the absence of material favouring the Applicant under the statutory criteria. The Court also noted that the Applicant’s legal representatives had opportunities to make representations and failed to raise certain points at appropriate stages, which could not be introduced belatedly at judicial review.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the application for judicial review.

The decision to recommend refusal of permission to stay in the State was upheld. The ruling confirms that the statutory discretion under Section 49 of the International Protection Act 2015 must be exercised based on material relevant to the prescribed criteria, and that earlier findings related to a minor’s best interests under the Dublin III Regulation do not impose ongoing humanitarian obligations once the individual attains adulthood. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles regarding the limits of judicial review and the proper scope of immigration discretion.