Tag Archive for: non-eea family reunification

REVISED POLICY DOCUMENT ON NON-EEA FAMILY REUNIFICATION – PUBLISHED 26TH NOVEMBER 2025

The Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration published a new Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification on the 26th November 2025 (‘the 2025 Policy Document’). This has replaced the previous version published in December 2016.

The 2025 Policy Document sets out established criteria to be met to facilitate family reunification for certain categories of persons who are legally resident in the State. There are a number of key changes in this revised version of the Policy Document, which we have provided an overview of below.

Categories of Family Members

The 2025 Policy Document now outlines three categories of family members in respect of whom applications for family reunification can be made. The categories are Nuclear Family (which consists of spouse, civil partner, and unmarried children under the age of 18), Dependent Parents and Dependant adult children.

Notably, dependent children, aged between 18-23 years old and who are in full-time education are no longer considered to be members of the Nuclear Family, as was the case in the previous 2016 version of the Policy Document.

To fit within the category of Dependant adult children under the 2025 Policy Document, the adult child must be “dependent on the care of the parent sponsor for their subsistence due to a serious medical or psychological condition that makes independent life unsustainable.”

Immigration Status of Sponsor

There are three separate categories of eligible sponsors under the 2025 Policy Document.

Category A Sponsor – includes Irish citizens and persons who have been granted refugee status or subsidiary protection, who are not eligible to submit an application for family reunification pursuant to s.56 and s.57 of the International Protection Act 2015.

Category A sponsors are eligible to submit an application for family reunification at any time.

Category B Sponsor – includes Investors with a permission under the IIP, Entrepreneurs with a permission under the STEP, CSEP holders, Researchers on Hosting Agreements, ISD-approved scholarship programme students, Intra-company transferees, PhD student permission holders, Full-time non-locum doctors in employment, and Ministers of Religion under the relevant Scheme.

Category B sponsors are eligible to immediate family reunification with nuclear family members. There is a waiting period of 2 years for category B sponsors to submit applications for dependant parents or dependant adult children.

Category C Sponsor – includes General Employment Permit holders, Reactivation Employment Permit holders, and Stamp 4 holders.

There is a waiting period of 12 months on an eligible permission for Category C Sponsors to submit an application for family reunification with nuclear family members, and 5 years in respect of any other family members.

Financial Thresholds

The 2025 Policy Document confirms that the Minister will consider the income of “only one individual sponsor” to determine whether the relevant required financial threshold is met to be eligible to sponsor an application for family reunification.

Category A Sponsors are required to have a cumulative gross income of €40,000 over the three-year period prior to the application, to sponsor an application for their spouse, civil partner or de facto partner.

Under the 2025 Policy Document there is no financial threshold to be met for a Category B Sponsor to sponsor an application for their spouse, civil partner or de facto partner, as they are eligible for immediate family reunification, prior to any finances being accrued.

Category C Sponsors with no children are required to have earned a gross annual income of €30,000 in the year prior to the application, to sponsor an application for their spouse, civil partner or de facto partner. This is a change to the previous policy of a requirement of an annual gross income of €30,000 in the two years prior to the application.

As was previously the case, the financial threshold that a Category C Sponsor must meet to apply for family reunification increases dependent on the number of children that the sponsor has. In this instance, the net income of the sponsor must be higher than that applied by the Department of Social Protection in assessing eligibility for the Working Family Payment (WFP). The required annual net and gross income is outlined in Appendix D of the 2025 Policy Document.

Dependent Adult Relative Applications

For all categories of sponsors, the financial threshold applied to Dependent Adult Relative applications is a gross annual income in excess of 185% of the average yearly earnings in Ireland for one relative and 250% thereof for two relatives, in each of the three years prior to the application. This percentage will be increased for subsequent adult dependent family members. The minimum gross annual salary for these applications is outlined in Appendix D of the 2025 Policy Document.

Furthermore, we highlight that pursuant to the 2025 Policy Document, in the processing of all applications for family reunification, the Minister will rigorously assess the Sponsor’s ability to financially support and accommodate the Applicant in the State.

The 2026 Policy Document is available here.

Berkeley Solicitors are available to provide advice in respect of all matters relating to the family reunification 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.

CLIENTS OF BERKELEY SOLICITORS WIN THEIR CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN H AND ORS V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE 2022 No 553 JR

CLIENTS OF BERKELEY SOLICITORS WIN THEIR CASE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN H AND ORS V MINISTER FOR JUSTICE 2022 No 553 JR

Berkeley Solicitors would like to congratulate our client who was successful in her proceedings today.
The applicant is a Somali woman who issued proceedings to challenge the decision of the Minister of Justice refusing long stay visas for her four minor children to join her in Ireland.

The case was brought by way of Judicial Review and was heard by Mr Justice Barr.

In issuing his judgment, Mr Justice Barr found that the key issue in this case was the exceptional humanitarian circumstances that were at play. Justice Barr found that ‘there was no evidence that the decision maker engaged in any real way’ with such factors. Justice Barr submitted throughout his judgment that the respondent failed to take into account ‘the very significant personal dilemma that faced by (the applicant) at the time’ as well as the state of deep political and social unrest faced by citizens in Somalia.

The case concerned a Somali woman who had fled to Ireland to join her sister by way of family reunification under S.18(4) of the Refugee Act 1996. The applicant subsequently applied for her minor children to join her in the State pursuant to the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification, however her application, and appeal on this decision were refused.

The respondent submitted there was insufficient evidence to corroborate a familial link between the mother and the minor applicants, stating that in entering Ireland:

‘she relinquished her role as the primary caregiver, with the knowledge that the Family Reunification appeal may be refused.’

Mr Justice Barr submitted that such a finding by the Minister was harsh, unfair and irrational.

The respondents further submitted that the applicant was not an eligible sponsor for the visa applications for her children as she had not resided for longer than one year in the State as required by paragraph 16.4 of the Policy Document.

Mr Justice Barr submitted that this case is of an exceptional humanitarian nature and therefore the policy can be departed from in such circumstances pursuant to paragraph 1.12 of the Policy Document:

‘While this document sets down guidelines for the processing of cases, it is intended that decision makers will retain the discretion to grant family reunification in cases that on the face of it do not appear to meet the requirements of the policy. This is to allow the system to deal with those rare cases that present an exceptional set of circumstances, normally humanitarian, that would suggest that the appropriate and proportionate decision should be positive’
The respondents further submitted that the test in finding whether the case in question was of an exceptional humanitarian nature was whether it could be demonstrated that ‘their circumstances are more severe to that of other Somali citizens’

The court found that the decision maker fell into error in making this finding. Mr Justice Barr stated that in order to circumvent the requirements of the policy document it is only necessary for them to establish that they constitute an exceptional set of circumstances. It was found that this ‘does not mean they have to prove their circumstances within the particular country in question are exceptional by the standards of that country.’

Mr Justice Barr also submitted that any submission made by the Minister in relation to errors in spelling on the applicant’s documents, occurring as a result of translations, were of probative value and were made irrationally and unfairly.

Mr Justice Barr further submitted that the financial requirements of the policy document were applied against the applicant without proper consideration of the exceptional humanitarian circumstances.

Mr Justice Barr stated this it was a key issue of the case that the Minister did not engage in a real way the with the exceptional humanitarian circumstances of the case.

The court summarized the findings as follows:

‘In summary, the court holds that to have applied the eligibility criteria and the
financial requirements of the policy in refusing the visa applications on behalf of the
minor applicants, while effectively ignoring the past circumstances of the first
applicant and her children, together with their present circumstances in Somalia, and
in not considering whether these constituted exceptional circumstances, which
warranted a departure from the strict requirements of the policy, rendered the decision
irrational and unfair. On this basis it has to be set aside.’

The court ultimately issued an order of certiorari quashing the Minister’s decision to refuse the visa applications for the four minor applicants.
The full judgement can be accessed via the following link:

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/231745d1-c37c-45e1-a633-248484d0ebf0/2023_IEHC_316.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

We wish to extend our congratulations to our clients for this ruling.

RECENT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT REGARDING ENTITLEMENT OF CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX PARENTS LIVING ABROAD TO IRISH PASSPORTS

RECENT HIGH COURT DECISION – REFUSAL OF REFUGEE FAMILY REUNIFICATION FOR NON-MARITAL PARTNER

Ms Justice Bolger of the High Court has recently delivered a judgement in the case of O v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 617.

 

The case concerned a Nigerian citizen who applied for refugee family reunification for his non-marital partner and three children in Nigeria pursuant to s.56 of the International Protection Act 2015. The applications for his children were granted, however the application for his partner was refused. The applicant sought to challenge this decision by way of judicial review proceedings in the High Court, seeking to quash the decision. The Court refused the application and did not grant the relief sought.

 

The application was refused on the basis that s.56(9) of the 2015 Act only permits unification with a marital partner, whilst the applicant’s partner was not married to him. Non-marital partners are covered by a separate administrative non-EEA Family Reunification policy.

 

The applicant claimed that s.56(9) is repugnant to the provisions of the Constitution and incompatible with EU law and the State’s obligations under the ECHR. He applicant also claimed that the administrative policy would not afford him reunification with his partner because he was unable to comply with its financial requirements. He argued that limiting statutory family reunification to a spouse will unfairly split non-marital families by leaving one parent isolated from the other and their children. The applicant argued that this limitation is contrary to Articles 40.1 and 40.3 of the Constitution on the right to equality and Article 41 family rights, as well as his rights under the ECHR to non-discrimination. The applicant also sought constitutional protection for his right to cohabit.

 

The Court rejected the argument that the applicant was being treated less favourably than a married refugee who has been separated from their spouse. The Court in making this determination considered the Minister’s submissions that the applicant was married to a third party and that this marriage had not been dissolved. The Court was satisfied that the applicant’s status is therefore that of a married person and he could not assert a constitutional right to equality of a non-married person to be treated equally to a married person.

 

The Court did not accept the assertion by the applicant that his non-marital relationship is akin to the marital relationship that is recognised under Irish law. The Court stated that insofar as the applicant contended that the relationship between him and his partner was akin to marriage, it could only be akin to a polygamous marriage, which is not recognised in Irish law.

 

In considering the applicant’s argument that there is a constitutional right to cohabit, the Court rejected that such a right existed. The Court further concluded that no EU rights are engaged in the application of s.56 of the 2015 Act and therefore the ECHR is not applicable.

 

The Court therefore found that it is not unlawful that unmarried partners are not included as family members under s.56 of the Act. The Minister has discretion in assessing the extent of family reunification to be afforded to refugees and is entitled to limit this. The Court found that applicants have a non-statutory procedure which they can use to apply for their unmarried partners, via a long-stay visa application, asking the Minister to disapply financial criteria if necessary. The Court found that the State had not breached the applicant’s constitutional rights by providing a different, and potentially more restrictive, non-statutory administrative policy for non-marital family reunification.

The full judgement can be found here:

https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/d322aab5-cda8-461b-b019-dc363a071c70/2022_IEHC_617.pdf/pdf#view=fitH

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.