The High Court has recently delivered a judgement in DD v the Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 67 upholding the refusal of a decision to refuse an application for naturalisation.  

The case concerned an application for naturalisation made pursuant to Section 16 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.

Section 15(1) of the 1956 Act provides for criteria to be met to be eligible for naturalisation as an Irish citizen.

Section 16 of the 1956 Act provides that the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, grant an application for naturalisation in certain circumstances, despite the Applicant not strictly meeting any or all of the criteria set out in Section 15.

Section 16(1)(a) of the Act states that an application may be approved where the applicant is of Irish descent or Irish associations.

Section 16(2) of the Act states that a person is of Irish associations in the following cases:

• he or she is related by blood, affinity or adoption to, or is the civil partner of, a person who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen, or
• he or she was related by blood, affinity or adoption to, or was the civil partner of, a person who is deceased and who, at the time of his or her death, was an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen.”

However, the fact that the Act provides for the use of discretion should not be taken that it is policy to do so on the sole basis of Irish descent or Irish associations. It is entirely at the Minister’s discretion and this discretion is used very rarely and only under exceptional circumstances.

This case involved a national of Brazil who first came to Ireland in 2006. She resided in Ireland from 2006 as the dependent of her father who held a work permit in Ireland. Her father naturalised as an Irish citizen in 2012. The applicant’s uncles, aunt and two cousins were also all Irish citizens who resided in Ireland.

The applicant lived in Ireland continuously for 6 years. She then returned to Brazil in 2012 after completing her Leaving Certificate.

The applicant lived in Brazil from 2012 onwards and visited Ireland for a short period in 2017.

She entered Ireland again in October 2018 on a visitor permission and then made an application for an extension of her visitor permission in January of 2019. This was refused and she was asked to make arrangements to leave Ireland on or before the expiration of her visitor permission.

On 24^th January 2019, the applicant made an application for naturalisation. This application was made on the basis that she did not meet the ‘reckonable residence’ requirements to have a year’s continuous residence in Ireland immediately prior to applying, with an additional four years of residence in the previous eight years. She therefore made the application under Section 16 of the Act, as a person of Irish associations, for the Minister to grant the application notwithstanding that she did not meet the ‘reckonable residence’ requirements.

The applicant then became pregnant and decided to return to Brazil before receiving a decision on her application. Her solicitors notified the Minister of her intention to return to Brazil and she was then issued with a proposal to deport her. She then returned voluntarily to Brazil in August of 2019.

By letter dated 15^th March 2023, the application for naturalisation was refused. The decision letter stated that the application was refused due to a “lack of exceptional and compelling reasons for the applicant not being able to meet the residency condition.” Therefore, the Minister was “not persuaded to grant waiver of this condition under Section 16.”

The decision letter stated that it was accepted that the applicant had strong Irish associations, however this is not sufficient in and of itself to guarantee a waiver of the conditions for naturalisation.

The Applicant challenged this decision by way of Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court.

Mr Justice Heslin held that the Minister has an absolute discretion to grant naturalisation. As Section 16 of the Act refers specifically to the conditions of naturalisation laid out in Section 15 of the Act, Heslin J held that it was not unlawful for the Minister to consider which of the conditions for naturalisation were not complied with, and the reasons why.

It was also noted that the applicant could have applied for naturalisation as a minor once her father had naturalised and had not done so, and that no explanation was provided as to why she did not apply at that time.

Mr Justice Heslin noted that the Act provides that as a matter of policy, a section 16 applicant must have an exceptional and compelling case for a favourable decision. Mr Justice Heslin found that the applicant was asking the Minister to make an exception to grant naturalisation even though she did not meet the conditions set out in Section 15 of the Act regarding residency, and it was therefore rational for the Minister to expect exceptional reasons to be given for why these conditions were not satisfied.

As no exceptional reasons were provided, he held that it was rational that the application was refused. The applicant’s challenge was therefore dismissed.

The full judgement can be found here.

If you or a family member have any queries regarding Citizenship, please do not hesitate to contact us.

This blog article has been prepared on the basis of current immigration law and policy, which is subject to change. Please keep an eye on our blog and Facebook page where articles relating to updates and changes in immigration law and policy are regularly posted.