FAMILY REUNIFICATION OF DEPENDENT PARENTS

Recently, we have been granted leave on a number of High Court Judicial Review proceedings against the Minister for Justice and Equality for failure to properly assess applications for family reunification for dependent parents. These cases have involved applicants who are Irish citizens or possess permanent residence in Ireland, and who have Irish citizen children, and have demonstrated the necessary financial means to support their parents so as not to place financial burden on the state. They have also demonstrated that their parents are in fact dependent on them financially, socially and emotionally, many of them having severe medical conditions and health problems, with no viable options for care and support in their home countries. In one particular case, medical evidence was provided confirming that one of the applicant’s parents could not to undertake long haul flights and this information was not considered.

The main issue that has arisen is the Ministers reliance on the INIS’s Policy Document on Non-EEA Family reunification. This document places rigorous hurdles on applicants stating that a “Highly restrictive approach should be taken”, citing the states inability to take on the potential financial liability of elderly dependent parents.

The financial thresholds for a sponsor of one dependent parent is a requirement to evidence earnings of €60,000 gross for the three years preceding the application, and 75,000 gross for inviting two parents.

Whilst our clients have good earnings, and demonstrated a strong ability to financially support their parents, they were unable to meet the high level of finances required.

No consideration was carried out that our clients sought only to acquire a Stamp 0 permission for their dependant parents - it is an express condition of residence that the applicant is not entitled to claim any state benefit.

Disregard was paid to the applicants rights as a family afforded by Article 41 of the constitution, section3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Article 8, and European Union law. In refusing the applications, the minister failed to asses these protections, stating that the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights would be fully considered if, and when, the deportation process is initiated against the second and third named applicants pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. We submit that this failure to fully weigh and assess the applicants rights render these decisions unlawful.

We would also highlight that the INIS policy document is not legally binding, and unfettered reliance may ultimately be unlawful due to its failure to recognise and adequately vindicate the safeguards and protections afforded to permanent residents rights of the family.

 

Karen Berkeley

Brophy Solicitors

Tamils to be deported despite clear torture evidence

An article in the UK Guardian from Friday, 14^th September, reports that the UK intends to move forward with a mass deportation of Tamils to Sri Lanka next week. Many of them arrived in the State to claim asylum, describing accounts of torture and ill-treatment.

Human rights organizations Freedom from Torture and Human Rights Watch both have corroborated those statements, arguing that “the government has severely underestimated this possibility [of torture] when it comes to returned Tamils, many of whom are routinely arrested and questioned about links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and activities in the UK, with torture often playing a part.” The UK Guardian has previously reported about aTamil man who had been refused asylum in the UK and tortured upon his return to Sri Lanka. Despite this, the UK Border Agency refuses to discuss the flights that are scheduled to deport the Tamils until after they have taken off.

Freedom from Torture notes, “This rate of referrals involving torture following return from the UK to a particular country is, to the best of our knowledge, unprecedented since Freedom from Torture was founded in 1985.”

A UK Border Spokesman said, “The UK has a proud record of offering sanctuary to those who need it, but people who do not have a genuine need for our protection must return to their home country. We only undertake returns to Sri Lanka when we are satisfied that the individual has no international protection needs. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that not all Tamil asylum seekers require protection.”

The head of Human Rights Watch, David Mepham, has said that HRW has documented a series of cases where failed asylum seekers from Tamil have faced torture or serious threats of torture upon their return to Sri Lanka. He recommended, “Given the very serious risk of torture facing many Tamils returned from this country, the UK should immediately impose a moratorium on these returns, pending a thorough review of UK policy in this area and the introduction of new assessment guidelines.”

At this point, it appears that the flights will go ahead as scheduled, but hopefully in the future, the UK Border Agency will more carefully review each case to prevent Tamils being returned to a situation where they would face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Brophy Solicitors

17.09.12

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/14/tamils-deported-despite-torture-evidence

Deportation Order issued against Third Country National on basis of Failure to Establish ‘Family Life’ Within the State

Case Study: K.A (Nigeria) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2012] IEHC 109

This case concerned an application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision to issue a deportation order against the applicant. The applicant argued that the Minister erred in law in failing to assess the manner in which the deportation order would affect the applicant’s entitlement to respect for her family life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The applicant, a Nigerian national, arrived in the state in November 2007 as an unaccompanied minor just before her fifteenth birthday. The applicant then resided with her aunt who was already living in the state with her two children. The applicant claimed she had been living with her grandparents before leaving Nigeria and she came to Ireland for a ‘better life’. Following the failure of her asylum claim and the rejection of her application for subsidiary protection, the Minister considered representations made for leave to remain in the state and then issued a deportation order against the applicant, which is now sought to be challenged.

The essential basis of the applicant’s application for leave to remain was that her aunt and two daughters had come to regard her as a member of their family, which is protected under Article 8 of the Convention. This argument was supplemented by information such as the fact that she was preparing to sit the leaving certificate and she was an active member of her church and youth group. The essential basis the Minister relied on in deciding that her Article 8 family rights would not be infringed was the fact that the applicant was now an adult aged eighteen, had been living in the state for a relatively short period of time during which she was pursuing an asylum application and was living with non-direct relatives.

The issued raised is thus whether the assessment made by the Minister is a rational one having regard to the information available as to the applicant’s circumstances and whether it is compatible with the criteria required to be applied by law in assessing ‘family life’ for the purposes of Article 8.

The High Court considered a number of previous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the question of expulsion.  A clear approach emerged that to constitute family life for the purposes of Article 8, mere legal residence over a period is insufficient. There must be evidence that the individual established personal roots in the contracting state through personal relationships, education, employment or other indicators such that the contracting state has become the real centre of the individual’s way of life.

The High Court applied these criteria to the circumstances of the case. It was found that the conclusion reached by the Minister was not wrong in relation to family life.   The Court outlined the applicant’s position.

Her family life for fifteen years was that spent with her grandparents and other relatives in Nigeria. Her aunt had had no involvement in the Applicants life prior to her coming to Ireland. There was doubt as to the family ties between the applicant and her aunt as her aunt had never mentioned the applicant in her application for permission to remain. Finally, although the applicant asserts that her aunt regards her as her daughter, the practical quality of the relationship has not been expanded on or explained in evidence.

In these circumstances, the High Court was satisfied that no stateable case had been made that the Minister erred or reached an unreasonable conclusion in deciding that the these circumstances did not amount to "family life" in the sense of a settled way of life in an established family group, in which there are subsisting emotional ties between the applicant and her aunt and younger cousins. For all of these reasons the application for leave was refused.

Brophy Solicitors
11.05.12

PILA/PILS PROJECT JOINT ANNUAL CONFERENCE 2011

We were very pleased to attend the PILA/PILS conference on Friday 11^th November held in the wonderful setting of Croke Park. The conference, entitled ‘Political Commitment, Practical Protection: Using the ECHR North and South’ featured speakers who provided insight into the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights both in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain. 

FLAC solicitor Michael Farrell provided an interesting analysis of his involvement in the transgender case of Lydia Foy and how Ireland was found to be in breach of the terms of the Convention.  Gerry Hyland, human rights solicitor practicing in Belfast provided a practical guide on how the ECHR has been relied on and developed through a broad spectrum of litigation in Northern Ireland.  Several workshops provided key information on how the articles of the Convention have been and can be relied on in various areas of public interest law including: Child Law, Mental Health, Travellers and Housing.  It was extremely educational and useful to hear speakers representing both North and South on key problem areas arising within public interest law affecting residents throughout Ireland. 

The audience were however captivated by one speaker in particular as Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty in the UK spoke eloquently about the importance of upholding human rights standards across borders.  Changes to the human rights scheme in the UK would be a negative step according to Ms. Chakrabarti who spoke about the coalition government’s proposal to make human rights and fundamental freedoms more contingent on citizenship and good behaviour: "Crude and ignorant attacks on the Human Rights Act in the UK should be troubling to friends of freedom further afield. How bizarre to talk up universal human rights abroad whilst seeking to dilute and diminish them at home. Fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be contingent on any particular patriot status," commented Ms Chakrabarti.

Speakers emphasised the growing need to ensure equivalent protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights both North and South given the current political climate and given the guarantees provided by the Good Friday Agreement. 

We would like to thank PILA/PILS for their excellent organisation and for the effort they put into organising this year’s conferences which was enjoyed by all.

Brophy Solicitors

16.11.11

Periodic Report Outcome 19.10.11

Ireland’s Universal Periodic Review took place in Geneva recently where Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr. Alan Shatter defended Ireland’s human rights record. Delegations of other United Nations countries put questions to the minister and made recommendations on how Ireland could improve shortcomings in the human rights area.

Of particular interest to us, is that the government have expressed their commitment to reducing the time taken to process applications for citizenship to an average of six months. It was also commented that the implementation of citizenship ceremonies demonstrated a positive attribute to welcoming new citizens into Ireland.

The United Nations outcome report on Ireland was adopted on Monday 10^th of October by the government and included 126 recommendations. Some of the noteworthy recommendations include that all asylum seekers in Ireland should be able to effectively accede to the process of determination of their refugee condition and that decisions on the necessity for international protection be reviewed and be subject to independent judicial supervision.

It was also suggested that practical and legal measures are adopted  to curb racial discrimination and discrimination against migrants and to look at the appeal by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) to ratify the 1960 Convention to counter discrimination in the area of education.

It was also interesting to note the suggestion to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to children in prison and asylum seeking children.

It is hoped that these recommendations will be adopted and allow Ireland to improve the current shortcomings in the area.



UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

This October saw Ireland examined for the first time by other United Nations (UN) countries on our human rights record. The process is called Universal Periodic Review.  It is a process where the human rights record of the United Nations 192 member states are reviewed and assessed every four years. It is an important part of reminding states of their responsibility to fully respect and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. As noted by Ban Ki – moon, UN secretary General, the Universal Periodic Review ‘has great potential to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world.’ 

Minister Alan Shatter personally attended the United Nations Geneva Head Quarters on the 6^th October 2011 to answer questions on Ireland’s human rights record as Ireland submitted to its first ever ‘Universal Periodic Review’. In his opening address, Minister Shatter made specific references to both the positives and negatives of Ireland’s human rights record. Of particular interest to us was his specific reference to the unacceptable delays in the Naturalization process. He confirmed that he was taking steps to rectify this problem, and aimed in due course to have all applications dealt with within a six month period. He acknowledged criticism for the lack of appeal process to decisions of Naturalization applications, but confirmed that he reviewed all decisions and therefore there was no higher authority to determine appeals.  He cited the new Citizenship ceremonies as a positive step towards welcoming and celebrating newly declared citizens. 

Questions were then put to the Minister from each represented member state focusing on human rights issues of concern in Ireland today including children’s rights, access to abortion and the ABC judgment, prison violence, overcrowding and sanitation and traveller’s rights. The review marked an opportunity for people in Ireland to highlight important human rights issues which face the country, and to encourage Ireland to promise to address these issues in front of an audience of their international peers.

The Minister made some positive statements such as confirming that a Referendum on children’s rights would be held early in 2012 in order to bring Ireland into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He acknowledged the urgent need to modernise our mental capacity legislation in order to protect those who are vulnerable in society. He also outlined a commitment to ratify the optional protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which would allow individuals to complain about alleged violations of these rights at an international level.

However, it has been noted that the Minister was short on detail in response to questions on other issues that are related to human rights protection in Ireland. For instance, the Minister noted the government are preparing legislation to enable it to ratify the Optional Protocol under the UN Convention against Torture. This is an important development and would require the establishment of a national body to monitor places of detention. However, the Minister failed to go into detail on the substance of that legislation or to give any timeline for its implementation. Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) Director Mark Kelly has commented that while Mr. Shatter appears to be sincere in his intentions, concrete action will be required to meet the promises made by Mr. Shatter at the review.

On the 11^th October, the UN Human Rights Council adopted its ‘Outcome Report’ on Ireland. This contained a summary of what was discussed at the hearing and a list of recommendations for Ireland to improve the human rights situation. This will be formally adopted at a hearing in March 2012, where Ireland, The United Nations Human Rights Council, and NGOs will be able to discuss the report and the obligations which Ireland are required to meet.  Once this report is formally adopted, it will form the basis on which Ireland’s human rights performance will be measured for the coming 4 years.

We believe that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an essential part of improving the human rights situation in all countries and to address human rights violations whenever they occur. It has allowed for civil society to contribute to the examination of Ireland by highlighting the human rights issues of concern which are facing Ireland today and providing evidence of this to the United Nations about how they are affecting people on the ground.

Brophy Solicitors

13.10.11