Tag Archive for: subsidiary protection

INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2026

The International Protection Act 2026 came into force on the 12th of June 2026 and has significantly overhauled the asylum process in the State.

The amendments introduced are particularly relevant to those with refugee status or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection who are seeking to apply for family reunification. Importantly, however, those who applied for family reunification prior to the 12th of June 2026 will continue to fall within the provisions of the International Protection Act 2015.

Under the new 2026 procedure, international protection beneficiary sponsors will not be entitled to apply for family reunification within the first two years following their grant of international protection. This waiting period may be waived where the applicant is a minor child.

There is a detailed list of permissible family members under the 2026 Act including unmarried minor children, dependent adult children and dependent parents. Spouses, civil partners and de facto partners also fall within the remit of the Act however the sponsor must be able to demonstrate that the relationship existed prior to applying for international protection in the State.

The International Protection Act 2026 lays out extensive conditions which must be satisfied by the international protection beneficiary sponsor. A certain minimum level of income must be met subject to the factors set out in section 212 of the Act. Where a sponsor makes an application for permission to be given to their spouse, civil partner, or de facto partner, then they must be in receipt of an annual gross income of at least €30,000. The Act also includes a detailed schedule for the income requirements of those seeking permission for their dependent children or dependent adult relatives.

It is important to note that the international protection beneficiary sponsor must not be in receipt of social welfare payments or prescribed housing supports at any point in the two years preceding the application.  Prescribed housing supports include;

  • Any dwelling provided by a housing authority, other than affordable housing
  • Any dwelling provided by an approved body
  • Any housing assistance provided under Park 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014
  • Any support relating to the entering into, and maintenance of, a rental accommodation scheme

It is possible for family reunification permission to be withdrawn under the International Protection Act 2026. This may arise where the family member does not enter Ireland within the date mentioned on their grant letter or whether the sponsor no longer holds refugee status or is a beneficiary of subsidiary protection. Permission may also be withdrawn where false and misleading information has been submitted with the application or where it is in the interest of national security and public policy.

 

The full International Protection Act 2026 can be found here.

Berkeley Solicitors are available to provide advice in respect of the process of family reunification.

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 POLICY DOCUMENT ON NON-EEA FAMILY REUNIFICATION INTRODUCES REQUIREMENTS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATEGORY C SPONSORS

NEW POLICY DOCUMENT ON NON-EEA FAMILY REUNIFICATION PUBLISHED 12TH JUNE 2026 INTRODUCES SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FOR REFUGEES AND BENEFICIARIES OF SUBSIDIARY PROTECTION

The Department of Justice has published a new Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification on 12th June 2026.

This Policy Document has introduced substantial amendments to the visa application procedure for all categories of Sponsor intending to sponsor a visa application for a non-EEA family member to join them in Ireland.

The new Policy Document provides that refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection will only be able to apply for family members under this Policy where their application does not fall within the scope of the International Protection Act 2026.

Such Sponsors may only apply under this Policy Document where there has been a minimum waiting period of 2 years from the date they were granted International Protection. Such Sponsors can only apply under this Policy where the application is regarding a relationship that formed after the sponsor’s entry to Ireland.

Refugees and subsidiary protection holders who meet the above criteria will be assessed under the Policy Document as Category C Sponsors.

The new Policy Document also provides that Sponsors in all categories must not be resident in homeless accommodation, other State funded emergency accommodation, accommodation provided by the International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS), social housing or local authority housing. Where a sponsor is in receipt of a social housing support, such as the Housing Assistance Payment, they also may not meet the requirements of the Policy.

Any application concerning a family member where the relationship was formed prior to the Sponsor’s entry to Ireland must be submitted under the International Protection Act 2026.

Berkeley Solicitors is available to provide advice and support for refugees commencing 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.

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.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL ON A DECISION CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF “CHILD” IN FAMILY REUNIFICATION LAW

The Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal from the State over the definition of “child” as referred to in the International Protection Act 2015.

Section 56 the 2015 International Protection Act sets down the procedure for refugees and the holders of subsidiary protection to make an application for family reunification.

The State’s appeal specifically concerns Section 56.9(d) which provides as follows:

“(9) In this section… “member of a family” means in relation to the sponsor-

(d) a child of the sponsor who, on the date of the application under subsection 1 is under the age of 18 years and is not married.”

In 2018, Mr Justice Barrett ruled that non-biological or adopted children are eligible for family reunification. Delivered in May, the High Court decision involved ‘Mr X’ who held subsidiary protection in Ireland and subsequently applied for family reunification for a 14-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl to whom he was the sole guardian of.

After refusing to undertake a DNA test, as requested by the Minister, the application was refused in 2017. Mr X made a second application which was also refused and therefore brought judicial review proceedings with the aim of quashing the Minister’s refusal.

In his decision, Mr Justice Barrett acknowledged that “there is a “wide diversity” of familial structures and the 2015 Act does not exclude non-biological relationships. He further found that a “cookie cutter” definition of children which only recognised biological children, “would doubtless be easier for the State to police…but it is not what the Act provides”. Mr Justice Barrett’s decision acknowledged that it is not always a straightforward task in defining who is a child of someone. He therefore directed the Minister for reconsideration of the matter.

Chief Justice Frank Clarke, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley and Ms Justice Mary Irvine have accepted a “leapfrog” appeal by the Minister and State against the High Court decision. This means that the State’s appeal will bypass the Court of Appeal and be directly heard by the Supreme Court.

The judges have emphasised that the definition of “child” in relation to the 2015 Act has the potential to relate to any case regarding non-biological minors who are claimed to be the child of person who has international protection.

The question as to which minors may benefit from family reunification is “a matter of general public importance”, they have underscored.

A hearing date for the appeal has not yet been fixed.