Tag Archive for: Naturalisation

RECENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT RELATING TO REFUSAL OF NATURALISATION APPLICATION FOLLOWING ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES

On the 7th of January 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment in the proceedings M and the Minister for Justice refusing to overturn the High Court’s judgement that the Minister’s decision not to grant a naturalisation certificate was lawful.

The facts of the case concerned a South African national, who had been resident in the State since 2001. She had applied for naturalisation in August of 2017, and was issued with a decision on the 28th of October 2022. Her application was refused largely on good character grounds, as she had incurred a number of driving offences in the State over the years. This applicant also had two previous refused naturalisation applications.

The Appellant had been convicted of numerous traffic offences, in 2007, 2012 and 2021. She argued that the initial traffic offences were no longer relevant, and that it was inappropriate to take into account offences that occurred so long ago when assessing her good character for the purposes of naturalisation.

However, referring to case law on the definition of good character, Ms Justice Hyland of the Court of Appeal held that there was no reason “old” traffic offences could not be considered. She noted that it is mandatory to disclose spent convictions when applying for citizenship. It was noted by the trial judge that the appellant’s general disregard for the Road Traffic Acts informed the Minister’s decision, and that this was appropriate. Ms Justice Hyland agreed with this assessment.

Furthermore, it was held that the 2021 conviction must be considered recent; the Minister was entitled to consider all three of the convictions, placing the most weight on the most recent offence.

It was held that the Minister comprehensively assessed the Appellant’s character in coming to her decision. The decision recited the history of the appellant’s naturalisation applications and long-term residency applications, accurately set out details of the appellant’s convictions and penalties, and summarised the explanation given by appellant for same. The decision also referred to her employment since 2001. The judge was satisfied that everything had been considered as a whole, and that ultimately the appellant’s disregard for road traffic laws (in particular, her careless driving) meant that she was deemed not to be of good character for the purposes of naturalisation.

This judgement highlights the significance of minor road traffic offences in the assessment of good character for the purposes of naturalization applications.

To read this judgment in full, please see the below link:

https://www.courts.ie/view/Judgments/a7508764-2b51-4f89-9cc3-43891710d72d/74f0aa0e-16e1-42dd-813b-d7ed17c5af59/2025_IECA_1.pdf/pdf

Berkeley Solicitors is available to provide advice and support for anyone commencing the naturalization application process.

 

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.

CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY UPDATE

MINISTER FOR JUSTICE COMMENCES NEW LEGISLATION ALLOWING FOR REVOCATION OF IRISH CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALISATION

Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 empowers the Minister to revoke naturalised Irish citizenship in certain circumstances and sets out the procedure to do so.

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Damache v Minister for Justice [2021] IESC 6, this procedure could not be utilised as it was found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that the process as provided for in Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 did not contain sufficient procedural safeguards to meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to a person facing such severe consequences.

The Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan has signed an order to recommence legislation allowing for naturalised Irish citizenship to be revoked in serious cases, effective from 7th April 2025.

We refer to our previous blog post on this topic, available here.

In a statement, Minister O’Callaghan outlines that the issues raised in the Supreme Court judgement of Damache have been addressed in the new procedure.

Section 19 of the 1956 Act (as amended) allows the Minister for Justice to revoke a certificate of naturalisation in cases where:

(1) the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances,

(2) the person has failed in their duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State,

(3) the person is ordinarily resident outside Ireland for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not annually registered an intention to retain Irish citizenship,

(4) the person is a citizen of another country which is at war with Ireland, or

(5) the person has voluntarily acquired another citizenship.

The new procedure is as follows:

Where the Minister is satisfied that one or more of the above reasons to revoke a certificate of naturalisation exists, the Minister shall issue a notice of intention to revoke the certificate of naturalisation on the person concerned. This notice must inform the affected person of the intention to revoke their certificate of naturalisation, and set out the reasons for this.

The notice can be served on an affected person in numerous ways, including by post or electronically.

Once the notice has been issued, the affected person will have a period of 28 days to respond and make representations regarding the revocation of their citizenship.

The Minister must then notify the affected person of the decision. If the Minister decides to revoke the certificate of naturalisation, the reasons for this decision must be set out.

A person who is the subject of a decision to revoke their certificate of naturalisation will have the right to request that an independent Committee of Inquiry be held to look into the Minister’s decision.

The Committee of Inquiry will consider the Minister’s decision to revoke the certificate of naturalisation and may decide to affirm or set aside the decision.

For further information, please see the press release published by the Irish government here.

Berkeley Solicitors are available to provide support and assistance to any persons affected by the new revocation process.

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.

New guidelines for naturalisation through Irish associations

UPDATED GUIDANCE ON APPLYING FOR NATURALISATION THROUGH IRISH ASSOCIATIONS

On the 2nd of April 2025, the Department of Justice published updated guidelines for those looking to apply for Irish citizenship via Irish associations.
The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 provides that the Minister for Justice has the discretion to grant a certificate of naturalisation where the applicant is of Irish descent of Irish associations, despite the normal conditions for naturalisation not being met.

For the purposes of this Act, a person is considered to be of Irish associations if they are related through blood, affinity or adoption to, or are the civil partner of:

• a person who is (or is entitled to be) an Irish citizen; or
• a deceased person who was (or was entitled to be) an Irish citizen at the time of their death.

It is not enough for a person to simply establish that they are of Irish associations. The Minister will use his absolute discretion in considering these applications, taking into account the following indicative categories:

• Experiential connection to the State
• Family connections to the State
• Cultural connection to the State
• Establishment in the State.

Applications are assessed under section 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) on a points basis. Points are awarded for satisfying certain scoring criteria related to the above categories. Applicants will need to achieve a score of at 50% or more in two or more of the above categories in order to qualify.

Notably, 60 points are awarded where the applicant has family members (as defined in section 15C the Act) who are, or were at their time of death, Irish citizens ordinarily resident in Ireland. Please refer to Table 1 in the guidelines for the full indicative scoring criteria.

While this assessment will be used to support officers of the Minister in assessing applications under section 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(b) of the Act, there may be other relevant factors not listed here that may be taken into account depending on the circumstances of an individual’s case. The Minister may exercise their absolute discretion in all cases and decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

It should be noted that this is entirely at the Minister’s discretion, and satisfying these guidelines does not guarantee the granting of a certificate of naturalisation. For more information, the new guidelines can be found at https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Irish-Association-wording-31032005.pdf.

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALISATION BY IRISH ASSOCIATIONS

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALISATION BY IRISH ASSOCIATIONS

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 24th 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 15th 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.

CURRENT EXPERIENCES OF THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE DELIVERY PORTALS

In 2023, the Minister opened the Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) Forms Portal. This portal provides applicants with an opportunity to submit a number of immigration applications to the Minister. This includes an application for renewal of immigration registration, an application for naturalisation for adults and minors and other specific immigration applications including de facto partner applications and applications for extension of student permissions.

In October 2024, the Minister also launched a separate portal, “The Digital Contact Centre”. It appears that the purpose of this portal is for persons to communicate with the Minister in respect of their applications, immigration concerns. However, a number of specific immigration applications are also submitted via this portal, including an application for first time registration and also applications as the parent or spouse of an Irish citizen.

The modernisation of ISD is to be warmly welcomed.

Any progress that can make the immigration system more accessible and easier to navigate for applicants is to be commended and supported.

Applicants are facing a number of issues with these portals as they currently operate.

One of the main issues with the ISD forms portal that are clients are informing us of and we are experiencing ourselves is as follows:

Once an application is submitted via the ISD forms portal, it can no longer be accessed or updated. It is possible to log in and see the data entered, however it is not possible to have sight of the documents uploaded or to amend the application in any way.

When the application is being assessed, the ISD may write to an applicant and ask for further information and documents. If this occurs, the portal application is “re-opened” and access is given to upload the further documents and or information. In many cases this system works smoothly and the documents are uploaded and submitted. However, in many cases , this creates a concerning issue with the application.

If a person needs more time to submit the required documents, perhaps documents need to be requested from other state departments and so on, there is no facility to request an extension of time.

In our experience the portal request closes after a set period of time (sometimes unknown to the applicant) , with no further notice and it is no longer possible to update the application and provide the documents requested.

Very recently, the ISD have stopped operating the email address for the Citizenship unit, which has been the main channel of communication between ISD and applicants  for many years.

Applicants therefore would have no option but to send a letter by post to citizenship or to instruct a solicitor to assist them with the predicament they find themselves in.

Our office has experienced difficulties with submitting further documents, vital to a citizenship application or indeed specifically requested, via post. We have received many responses from ISD  with a direction that documents can only be submitted via the portal- This is not workable if the portal in question has not been reopened .

The move to a portal system is a big change for all parties in this process- applicants, solicitors and the  ISD.

It should be recognised that this is changing and evolving time and applicants should be assisted and facilitated in navigating this new system and there should be a recognition by ISD that this system is in its infancy.

Applicants should not be put at risk that their application might be refused, rejected or deemed ineligible when they have made best efforts to submit a comprehensive application and have tried their upmost to comply with requests via the new portal system.

No applicant should be put at risk of a rejection in these circumstances.

We also look forward to the creation of a third party portal so that solicitors have  a real way to act for their clients on their immigration  applications and are not relying on interim solutions to use portals that have be established for use by individual applicants and not solicitors.

Berkeley Solicitors through our involvement with the Irish Immigration Lawyers Association, have brought our concerns regarding the issues we are encountering with the portal to the attention of the Department and are engaging with the Department towards seeking to improve the system

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT- REFUSAL OF TRAVEL VISA FOR EMPLOYMENT PERMIT HOLDER

RECENT COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT – A QUESTION REFERED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The Court of Appeal has decided to refer a question to the CJEU in the case of R.S v Minister for Justice [2024] IECA 151, delivered on 21st June 2024.

The question relates to whether the Minister can make a decision/finding pursuant to the 2015 Regulations in relation to marriage of convenience/ fraud after the individual has become an Irish citizen through naturalisation.

The facts of this case surrounded an applicant who obtained an EU Fam residence card based on his marriage to an EU national in 2010 and he later naturalised as an Irish citizen. The applicant later separated and divorced from his EU National spouse.

In 2019, a third-party non-EEA national made an application for a residence permission on the basis that she was the mother an Irish citizen child, to whom the applicant was the father.

This resulted in the Residence Division contacting the EUTR Investigation unit who in turn opened an investigation into the applicant’s marriage to his ex-wife in 2010.

In December 2019 the Minister sent a letter to the applicant proposing to “revoke” his residence card, even in circumstances where at that time he was an Irish citizen.

In February 2020 the Minister revoked the residence card previously held by the applicant on the basis that he had submitted misleading documents and also on the basis that his marriage was one of convenience.

The Applicant reviewed this decision and in September 2020 the decision was upheld on review.  A further review was sought by the applicant, and this was refused.

Correspondence between the applicant’s solicitor and the Respondent ultimately led to the above decisions being withdrawn and replaced with a new decision of February 2022. As the Court noted:

The wording of new decision of 1st February 2022 was different and, significantly, did not purport to “revoke” anything

In the decision of February 2022, the Minister held that the applicant had submitted false and misleading documents and that his marriage was one of convenience. The decision stated in material part:

This marriage was never genuine, and any entitlement or status conferred under the Directive from your marriage to the Union citizen concerned are deemed withdrawn from the outset.”

The High Court found the decision of the Minister to be lawful in that it did not proport to revoke or cancel anything, the fact that the applicant had acquired Irish citizenship did not make him immune to Ministerial enquiries into a grant of permission to him in the past.

The Court of Appeal held there are two key questions in this case:

  • Does the Directive apply to an Irish citizen after he has ceased to be a beneficiary of it by reason of acquiring citizenship?
  • Does the Minister have a “free-standing” power under the Regulations to make certain factual determinations at a time and in a context where there is no possibility of linking the determination to any decision to “revoke, refuse to make or refuse to grant” any right, entitlement or status in accordance with the Regulations?

The Court went on to consider the relevant Case law including Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department – In which it was held that once the applicant obtained British citizenship, as she was living in the UK, she was no longer a beneficiary of the Directive as she was no longer outside her member state.

The Court also compared the arguments in the present case to the judgment of Chenchooliah v Minister for Justice and Equality (Case C-488/21), 10th September 2019, where the Directive was still held to apply to the applicant even though it was clear she was no longer a beneficiary of same.

The Minister contends that the Regulations should be read as entitling the Minister to make a determination about a past state of affairs and also having regard to the context to the Regulations, implementing a Directive in which the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse of EU residence rights is an important component

The Court ultimately determined that a question should be referred to the CJEU:

Whether Directive 2004/38/EC applies to a person who previously obtained the benefit of derived residence in a Member State by virtue of being a spouse of an EU national exercising Treaty rights but who has more recently become a citizen in the host State and is no longer the beneficiary of any benefit under the Directive, solely for the purpose of investigating and (if appropriate) making a determination or reaching a conclusion that he engaged in a fraud or abuse of rights and/or a marriage of convenience in the past in order to obtain a benefit under the Directive?

The full judgements in this case can be accessed below.

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/7bbff9a4-5a97-40a6-a3bb-fe710e9048d4/2024_IECA_151.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

UPCOMING CITIZENSHIP CEREMONY

NEW REVOCATION PROCEDURE FOR NATURALISED IRISH CITIZENS

The Court, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 has passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas and is now awaiting being signed into law by the President. Once enacted, the Bill will insert new provisions into the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) that deals with the revocation of citizenship for naturalised Irish citizens. The previous system for revocation was struck down by the Supreme Court four years ago in the Supreme Court case of Damache v Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 63 for failing to meet the “high standards of natural justice” which the Court held must apply to the process of revocation of certificates of naturalisation. The Supreme Court held that any such process must comply with fair procedures and contain adequate safeguards for persons facing the revocation of their citizenship.

Section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) currently allows the Minister for Justice to revoke a certificate of naturalisation in cases where (1) the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts or circumstances, (2) the person has failed in their duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State, (3) the person is ordinarily resident outside Ireland for a continuous period of seven years and without reasonable excuse has not annually registered an intention to retain Irish citizenship, (4) the person is a citizen of another country which is at war with Ireland, or (5) the person has voluntarily acquired another citizenship. These reasons for revocation are unchanged by the new Bill. The Supreme Court case of Damache struck down the process the Minister had previously used to revoke naturalisation, and therefore there was and remains no pathway for the Minister to revoke naturalisation, until such time as the new Bill is signed into law by the President.

 

Berkeley Solicitors has reviewed the Court, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 with a view to advising clients who may be issued with notices of intention of revocation of citizenship. The new Bill raises concerns in respect of short timeframes for naturalised citizens facing the revocation process to engage (as little as six weeks in total from proposal to revocation pursuant to sections s.19(IC) and (IJ)), the requirement to only use one method to serve of the notice of intention to revoke, the level of independence afforded to the Committee of Inquiry in circumstances where the Minister will prescribe their procedures and the availability of oral hearings, and the exception to the requirement to give reasons to a naturalised citizen facing the revocation process when issues of national security are raised (s.19(1O)).

 

There are also concerns about the ambiguous nature of some of the listed reasons for revocation, in particular, in what circumstances a person can be deemed to have failed in their duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. On this point, Minister McEntee has stated:

“This power is used sparingly and has been used less than ten times in total from 1956 to-date. The revocation of Irish citizenship is only undertaken in the most serious of circumstances, including on grounds of fraud, deception and national security.”

 

For further information, please see the press release published by the Irish government: https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/e7e2f-ministers-mcentee-and-browne-welcome-passage-of-the-courts-civil-law-criminal-law-and-superannuation-misc-provisions-bill/

A copy of the Court, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 as passed by Dáil Éireann is available at: https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2024/48/eng/ver_a/b48a24s.pdf

 

Berkeley Solicitors are available to provide support and assistance to any persons affected by the new revocation process.

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.

EMPLOYMENT PERMITS ACT 2024 SIGNED INTO LAW

NATURALISATION APPROVAL BASED ON STAMP 2A (SPOUSE OF PHD STUDENT)

Clients of Berkeley Solicitors have recently received a positive decision regarding a naturalisation application for a minor child of a Stamp 2A holder, based on their parent’s residence. It was previously thought that Stamp 2A was not reckonable for naturalisation purposes and this continues to be stated on the ISD website.

The applicant child’s parent was the spouse of a PhD student and held Stamp 2A on that basis.  We argued that the Stamp 2A permission was reckonable for naturalisation purposes pursuant to Section 16A(1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 (as amended) as the permission issued to the child’s parent as the spouse of a financially independent student, not for the purpose of engaging in a course of education or study. The application was ultimately successful.

We note that this is an extremely positive development, and we are grateful for the decision issued to our clients.

Please note that this legal argument would not apply to other categories of Stamp 2A holder who are themselves studying in Ireland.

For more information on citizen and naturalisation please see the link below:

https://berkeleysolicitors.ie/citizenship-and-naturalization/

If you or a family member have any queries regarding Stamp 2A and 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.

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF APPLICATION FOR NATURALISATION BY IRISH ASSOCIATIONS

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT UPHOLDS DECISION TO REFUSE IRISH PASSPORT TO CHILD OF SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION HOLDER

The High Court has recently delivered a judgement in T.R.I. (A Minor Suing by his Mother and Next Friend L.B.) v The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Justice [2024] IEHC 96.

The case concerned a minor child born in Ireland in September of 2019, whose mother holds a declaration of subsidiary protection status.

Subsidiary protection is granted to individuals facing a real risk of suffering serious harm if returned to their country of origin, or their country of former habitual residence.

In August of 2021, the Applicant’s mother applied for an Irish passport on behalf of her child.

Section 6A(1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 states that a person born on the island of Ireland “shall not be entitled” to Irish citizenship unless their parent has, during the four years immediately preceding the birth, a period of reckonable residence of not less than three years.

However, Section 6A(2)(d)(i) qualifies that section 6A(1) does not apply to a child born on the island of Ireland if one parent is entitled to reside in the State “without any restriction” on their residence.

As the mother is a subsidiary protection holder, it was argued that she fell within this subsection of persons who are entitled to reside in the State without any restriction on their period of residence. This would mean the child was entitled to Irish citizenship by birth, even though the mother had less than three years’ reckonable residence in the four years immediately prior to the child’s birth.

This application was refused on the 15th of November 2022, on the basis that Section 6A (2)(d)(i) of the 1956 Act does not apply to a person with subsidiary protection.

The Applicant, through his mother, challenged this decision by way of Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court. It was argued that the mother is entitled to reside in the State without restriction, as the relevant law states that her permission “shall” be renewable, and it is not in any way restricted by time.

The Applicants relied on the Court of Appeal decision in AJK v The Minister for Defence [2020] 2 IR 800, where the Court found that subsidiary protection was “in effect an open-ended right of residence.”

Ms Justice Bolger considered the decision in AJK and stated that she did not consider it established an open-ended right of residence for a person with subsidiary protection. She stated that the comments of Donnelly J must be read in context of the entire judgement and highlighted that the case did not concern citizenship.

Ms Justice Bolger stated that although the law states that the subsidiary protection permission “shall be renewable”, its renewal is in fact conditional; firstly on the continuation of the circumstances that justified the grant of subsidiary protection in the first place, and secondly on there being no compelling reasons of national security or public order.

The Judge stated:

“The mother’s right to renew her permission to reside in the State via her grant of subsidiary protection… is and always was for a temporally restricted permission of a period less than three years subject to conditions.”

Ms Justice Bolger therefore upheld the decision of the Respondent to refuse the child’s application for an Irish passport.

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.

EMPLOYMENT PERMITS ACT 2024 SIGNED INTO LAW

IMMIGRATION IN IRELAND STATISTICS MID-TERM REVIEW

 

The Department of Justice has provided up to date statistics from January 2022 to June 2022 in relation to, Residency and EU Treaty Rights, Visa, Citizenship statistics, International protection, and Removal/Deportation. The statistics were broken down by nationality, gender, and age group.

In relation to EU Treaty Rights Applications from January to June 2022, the data shows that nationals from Brazil, South Africa, and Pakistan were the top nationalities of applications received by the Department of Justice. 1356 applications were received from Brazil, 240 from Pakistan, and 153 from South Africa.

The statistics found that nationals from India, Egypt, and China were the top nationalities for Long Term Residency Applications. 30 applications for Indian nationals, 26 applications for Egyptian nationals, and 25 for Chinese nationals (including Hong Kong).

The total visas decided from January to June 2022 were primarily from India, Nigeria, and Turkey. With 21535 visas from Indian nationals, 3396 visas from Nigerian nationals, and 3019 visas from Turkish nationals. In total, most of the visas granted were for Indian (20736 visas), Turkish (2812 visas), and Chinese nationals (2477 visas). The most refused visas were for nationals from Nigeria (1568), India (799), and Pakistan (541), with an overall number of 5825 visas refused. The total decided re-entry visas from January to June 2022 were from Indian, Pakistani and Egyptian nationals.

From January to June 2022, there were 7039 citizenship certificates issued, mainly in respect of United Kingdom, Indian, and Pakistani nationals.

In total, there were 6495 applications received relating to International Protection Applications for 2022. Mainly from Georgia (1811), Somalia (938), and Algeria (698). Out of those applications, there were 1037 applications that have been approved, primarily from Somalia, Afghanistan, and Zimbabwe. Moreover, 1657 applications were refused primarily from Nigeria (216), Georgia (216), Zimbabwe (204).

In relation to Family Reunification Applications, there were 1137 applications submitted from January to June 2022, mainly from nationals of Somalia (489), Afghanistan (247), and Syria (69). 1911 applications for access to the labour market were submitted from January to June 2022, mainly from Somalia, Georgia, and Nigeria nationals.

There were 23 total removals effected, primarily from Romania, Lithuania, and Poland nationals. 54 deportations effected primarily from Pakistan, Nigeria, and Georgia nationals.

The book for the full statistics can be found here: https://www.irishimmigration.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Mid-Year-Review-Statistics-Booklet-2022.pdf

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.