SUCCESS IN FAMILY REUNIFICATION APPLICATION

One of our clients received a positive decision this week in a long-running family reunification case we have been advising on. 

The application was made in September 2013 by a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo for family reunification with his wife. At the time of the application, the wife was a recognised refugee living in very difficult conditions in a refugee camp in Tanzania. She was also pregnant and gave birth in the refugee camp hospital in April 2014.

The application was well supported by documentation substantiating the relationship, the contact between the couple, the addition of a new born baby, and the dire conditions of the family members. Notwithstanding the documentation provided, DNA evidence was requested by the Department of Justice and Equality in order to satisfy them of the relationships between the parties.  This created a further delay as the family members had to travel a considerable distance to the capital in order to attend the designated clinic for testing.

Positive DNA results were received shortly after the testing and the application, just over a year since the application was made, has now been determined in the favour of our clients to their enormous relief.

Rebecca Keatinge
Brophy Solicitors

 

FAMILY REUNIFICATION AND ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”.

In regards to family reunification applications, the respect for family life referred to in article 8 becomes of particular importance.

Over the course of its history, the European Court of Human Rights has established a substantial body of case law in regards to both the right to respect for family life individually and its impact on the assessment of unsuccessful family reunification applications. Importantly, the ‘family’ has been established as an autonomous concept, meaning the European Court of Human Rights is not bound by the national courts assessment of what constitutes as a family.

That is not to say that the courts handling of unsuccessful family reunification applications and article 8 is completely unfettered. In its assessment of the individual’s rights under Article 8, the court must find a balance with the host states immigration policies. Usually a wide margin of appreciation is afforded to the state. This reflects the wider policy that it is primarily for the state to ensure that the individual’s rights are upheld. In her article, ‘Family reunification in EU law and under the ECHR’ Nuala Mole points out that the key question in assessing the interplay of family reunification and Article 8 is “whether the state has overstepped this margin of appreciation in the particular case before it and so failed to respect this key right.”

In general, recognition must be given to the well established fact that the ECHR does not guarantee to individuals a choice of country of residence.

Taking a similar interpretation to its stance on family regularisation, the ECHR will generally find that a spouse resident in Europe, whose partner is not within the union, may be required to relocate as opposed to have their spouse join them, unless they show that there are “serious obstacles” preventing relocation. This will not usually constitute a breach of Article 8 as it is not preventing the couple continuing their ‘family life’, even if they are required to do so in another country.

Nuala Mole’s assessment is particularly relevant, “The Court also attaches considerable weight to the fact that the immigration difficulties, which a family is now encountering, were ascertainable at the time of the marriage, and that the couple should not therefore have had an expectation that they would be able to live together in the host country”.

In the case where it is a child who has been left behind, as often happens when families migrate, the ECHR have generally taken the same hard line approach that there is no Article 8 violation where it is possible for the family to carry out family life in their country of origin. However, sometimes a much more favourable approach may be taken. Where circumstances dictate that a different path is necessary, the ECHR may look favourably on the applicant.

Nuala Mole’s article ‘Family Reunification in EU law and under the ECHR’ can be viewed here.

Brophy Solicitors

A SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS FOR FAMILY REUNIFICATION

The Policy document on Non-EEA Family Reunification sets out the thresholds to be applied when accessing family reunification applications involving immediate family members:

· the nuclear family (married partners and children living in the same household); and

· de facto partners (a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis).

As the document points out, it must be recognised that “the financial capacity is just one of the conditions to be satisfied for family reunification to take place”. That being said, a significant amount of emphasis is placed on the financial requirements so as to avoid a situation where the applicant becomes a financial burden on the state.

Depending on the status of the sponsor, different sets of financial guidelines apply to particular cases:

The Sponsor is an Irish Citizen

Where the sponsor holds Irish citizenship, the guidelines are two tiered. Firstly, the sponsor must not have been reliant on state assistance for a continuous period in excess of 2 years, immediately prior to the application. They must not have been a burden on the state. Secondly, in the three year period prior to the application, the sponsor must have “earned a cumulative gross income over and above any state benefits of not less than €40k”.

The Sponsor is a Non-EEA National

In cases where a sponsor is not a national of a European Economic Area country the guidelines to be applied depend on which sub-category they fall into.

Category A sponsors include:

· Green Card Holders

· Investors

· Entrepreneurs

· Business Permission Holders

· Researchers

· INIS Approved Scholarship Programme Students (e.g. KASP)

· Intra Corporate Transferees

· PhD Students (subject to conditions including no recourse to social welfare payments)

· Full Time Non-Locum Doctors in Employment

In this category, it is possible for family reunification to take place before any earnings are accumulated. For this to be the case, the sponsor and their immediate family members subject to the family reunification application must continue to meet the conditions which their permission to reside in the state is based on. On renewal of their permission, evidence of such must be provided. For green card holders and investors, this will be accessed based on “achieving the levels of earnings projected”. While in the case of PhD students, time limits are applied and academic advancement must be evidenced. In addition to the particular requirements of a Category A sponsors status, the policy document sets out that there must not be “recourse to social welfare payments” i.e. neither the sponsor nor their family members may become a burden on the state.

Category B sponsors include:

· Non Green Card Employment Permit Holders

· All Stamp 4 Holders not covered by other more favourable arrangements

· Ministers of Religion who are not maintained by the church, in cases where they are it may be possible for these sponsors to be considered under Category A

This category of sponsors must have a gross income in both of the previous two years, in excess of the level applied by the department of Social Protection in assessing eligibility for Family Income Supplement. Based on the FIS, families with children are required to have the following net incomes per week; which are based on the number of children:

· 1 child - €506

· 2 children - €602

· 3 children - €703

· 4 children - €824

· 5 Children - €950

Where a couple does not have any children, the FIS does not apply. In cases where these requirements are met, there is a reasonable expectation that they will continue to be met in the future. Where a sponsor falls short of the required level, declared and verified savings may be taken into account.  However, as previously stated, these are mere guidelines and may not be strictly adhered to. The deciding officer assessing a particular case is afforded a certain level of discretion where there are “doubts regarding the sustainability of earnings”.
Regardless of which category the sponsor falls into, the onus of proof to satisfy the immigration authorities is on the applicant.

The Policy document on Non-EEA Family Reunification may be viewed here. Section 17, pages 39 to 41, set out the guidelines discussed above.

Brophy Solicitors

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

APPLICATIONS FOR VISAS AND RESIDENCE PERMISSION FOR DEPENDANT NON NATIONAL PARENTS

We are currently working on many applications on behalf of our clients to be joined in the State by their elderly dependant non EEA parent/s. The cases involve general Long Stay Visa applications, and sometimes Change of Status applications while the parent is already in the State.

This is an area now governed by the Minister’s “Policy Document on NON EEA Family Reunification” published in December 2013. The guidelines focus on the financial responsibility for the subject of the application. The matter of whether the subject is dependant or not is left to the sponsoring family member to prove. No definition of dependency is provided. The guidelines indicate that the onus is on the sponsoring family member to show that there is no viable alternative option other than the dependant parent residing in Ireland. The specific financial thresholds referred to in the guidelines include evidencing that the sponsoring family member is earning a minimum of €60,000/ €75,000 (net) for the three years preceding the application (depending on whether one or two parents are the subjects of the application). 

The high financial thresholds will most likely act as a barrier to many applications such as this, if applied very stringently. However, we highlight that the policy guidelines are subject to the parameters of the law. In general, the law requires that each application is assessed on it’s individual merits, and a fair and reasonable outcome is reached, appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances at hand. 

We have limited specific law in this area, other than the significant judgement in the case of Mr Justice Cooke in the case of O'Leary v. Minister for Justice [2012] IEHC 80 (High Court, Cooke J, 24 February 2012). Mr Justice Cooke gave weight to the moral institution of the family, as protected by Article 41 of the Constitution, and confirmed that dependant parents of an adult child remain members of the family unit within the meaning of Article 41. He referred to right to rely on Article 41 when seeking State intervention to discharge a “moral obligation” towards non national family members in need of support and care.

In terms of the lawfulness of any interference by the State in family life, Mr Justice Cooke stated as follows;

“The core value enshrined in Article 41 is the entitlement of the family to order its own internal life and affairs without interference from the State, unless such interference is objectively justified, in the interests of individual members of the family or necessary in the overriding public interest.”

Mr Justice Cooke emphasized in his judgement that it would be an unbalanced approach for the Minister to isolate an analysis of dependency to purely financial aspects. He also confirmed the definition provided by Mr Justice Hogan in the judgement granting leave, that while dependency must go beyond “welcome” support, it is not necessary that the receiver of support be in a situation of destitution.

We would submit that in cases where a legitimate relationship of dependency and financial self sufficiency exists, and there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a lawful refusal, Mr Justice Cooke’s judgement in the O’Leary case gives much scope for applicants to argue their case outside the strict financial thresholds of Minister’s guidelines.

Karen Berkeley 

Brophy Solicitors

SUMMARY OF THE INIS POLICY DOCUMENT ON NON-EEA FAMILY REUNIFICATION (Published December 2013)

Addressing the need for more comprehensive and transparent guidelines to assist both applicants and decision makers in the area of family reunification, the Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification, released by the Department of Justice in December of 2013, aims to make clear how the State intends to deal with family reunification cases. The document does not create or acknowledge any new rights of family reunification, however it does present a series of proposals aimed at improving the family reunification process. Here we have summarized some of the more significant proposals as well as the current policies outlined in the document with respect to application processing, the qualifications of a sponsor, dependency requirements, eligibility requirements for spouse, civil partner or de facto partner, elderly dependent parents, and applications for parental migration on the basis of Irish citizen children.

Proposed Changes to Family Reunification Application Processing

The document proposes administrative changes in consolidating the processing of family reunification applications and appeals within the INIS. 

The document proposes the establishment of a preclearance facility for family reunification applications, requiring all applications to be submitted to the facility from overseas rather than upon arrival in Ireland. This would involve a standard application form and fee and the establishment of a central specialist family settlement unit where all applications would be referred. This standardized system would place visa required and non-visa required applicants on a level playing field and work to ensure transparent and consistent information gathering for both officials and applicants. It would also aim to address issues arising from the lack of certainty for applicants applying from within the country who only have ninety days to complete the process. Further, the document states the intention to discuss the addition of language and cultural knowledge requirements for applicants at all levels of immigration.

Second, the document proposes the establishment of a statutory appeals system through provisions in the Immigration Residence and Protection Bill. Once in place, applications for family reunification will be incorporated.

Lastly, the document proposes to provide specific immigration permission for children under the age of 16 to be registered on an administrative basis (not currently allowable under the 2004 Immigration Act) which will allow them to establish personal resident history at an earlier date.

Qualifications of a Sponsor 

Currently, those eligible to be sponsors in the family reunification process include a:

• An Irish citizen residing or intending to reside in Ireland
• Lawfully resident foreign national as an Employment Permit Holder 
• Lawfully resident foreign national with an immigration Stamp 4 , including Long Term residents 
• If Stamp 4 holder is a refugee or a person granted subsidiary protection, this also applies 
• Lawfully resident foreign national with an immigration Stamp 5
• Researcher under a hosting agreement
• PhD student studying for a doctorate accredited in Ireland
• Minister of Religion with an immigration Stamp 3

With respect to these qualifications, it is proposed that sponsors will additionally have to achieve minimum levels of earnings prior to being eligible to sponsor a family member. These will be set at a cumulative gross figure of €40,000 over three years where the sponsor is an Irish citizen and a higher level where the sponsor is a non-EEA national. Social welfare payments will not be reckonable as earnings for this purpose. This requirement would also increase where an application is made for a dependent elderly parent.

Further, the document proposes to adopt a streamlined approach to residency requirements for non-EEA sponsors, with highly skilled workers, entrepreneurs, researchers and others able to apply immediately for family reunification. A 2 year waiting time is applied in cases of certain other categories.

Dependency Requirements

As defined and further clarified by this policy document, “dependency” means that the family member is (i) supported financially by the sponsor on a continuous basis and (ii) that there is evidence of social dependency between the two parties. The degree of dependency, both financial and otherwise, must render independent living at a subsistence level by the family member in their country impossible if that financial and social support is not maintained. This relationship must also be proven to be pre-existing and sustained prior to creating and submitting an application for family reunification.

Eligibility Requirements for Spouse, Civil Partner or De Facto Partner

Any eligible spouse, civil partner, or de facto partner must be at least 18 years of age. The relationship must be monogamous, freely entered into by both parties, and lawfully conducted and recognized under Irish law. The couple must also demonstrate a clear commitment that they will live together following the outcome of the application as circumstances permit.

For marriages and civil partnerships there is no minimum duration requirement. De facto partnerships are required to prove the existence of a relationship akin to marriage, including cohabitation two years prior to submission of the application.

Entry for the purposes of marriage or civil partnership may also be permitted given a 6 month provision, so long as it can be proven that the union is not for convenience. Similarly, proxy marriages may also be recognized under the same policy if it is demonstrated that the marriage is genuine and freely entered into by both parties and the couple can show that they have met each other in person.

Elderly Dependent Parents

Because the potential financial liability for the State of providing medical treatment to accepted elderly dependent relatives is considerable, the document states “emigration, including that by Irish people, is undertaken with no legitimate expectation of ever being joined by parents” and as such, all cases are approached highly restrictively. 

To address this concern, the document proposes that the sponsor of an elderly dependent relative be required to have earned in Ireland each of the three years preceding the application an income after tax and deductions of no less than €60,000 in the case of one parent, and € 75,000 in the case of two parents. The requirements for dependency outlined previously must also be met in all cases involving elderly dependent relatives. As such, the sponsor must also prove that there is absolutely no viable alternative including the availability of other family members, financial resources, and the movement of the sponsor from Ireland to care for the applicant.

If the application is approved, the document further proposes that the applicant be covered by private medical insurance at above the level of VH plan D or equivalent. The sponsor must also sign a legal undertaking to bear personal and complete financial responsibility for the elderly dependent relative and make detailed provision for their accommodation. Permission of this kind would be regarded as temporary and renewable on an annual basis providing all conditions are met and the accepted applicant will be given Stamp 0 (not reckonable for Long Term residence or Naturalisation).

Irish Citizen Children-Applications for Parental Migration

In cases where parents seek residence in Ireland on the basis of their citizen (minor) child, applications are considered with respect to the contribution the parent’s presence would contribute to the child’s enjoyment of its rights as a citizen and parents cannot claim personal rights of residence merely by their parentage of a minor Irish citizen child. This addressed, the document states that each application is viewed individually, taking into account each family’s specific situation. However, it also states that a series of linked applications, seeking to bring to Ireland both parents and all siblings on the basis of a single minor citizen child would seem to go beyond what is reasonable. This is seen as particularly relevant if the State would be required to provide for the family financially.

Karen Berkeley 

Brophy Solicitors

Developments in Family Reunification for Refugees - Abdulaziz Ali Mohamed v Minister for Justice and Equality

Failure of the Minster for Justice to establish ‘an objective yardstick’ in relation to establishing economic dependency of family members, led to the quashing of a refusal of Family Reunification in the recent decision in the case of  Abdulaziz Ali Mohamed v Minister for Equality and Justice, delivered on the 14^th February 2013.

The Applicant arrived in Ireland as an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum from Somalia. He was declared a refugee on 19^th October 2007. This case concerned his application for family reunification with his Mother and four siblings under s.18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996. The  application was refused on the basis that he had failed to establish that his family were ‘dependent’ on him in the narrow sense of being financially dependent, as it was held the financial support being provided by the applicant did not sufficiently meet the requirements of s. 18 (4).

The Court considered that the Minister must identify ‘some objective yardstick by which dependency can be assessed’. It is inadequate to speculate such a standard in relation to Irish norms. As held in the recent judgment of Ducale & v. The Minister [2013] IEHC 25, ‘financial dependency must be seen as a flexible state of affairs’, of which ‘much must depend on what the contribution provides when received in the hands of the recipient.’ Therefore the Commissioner must endeavour to obtain objective information in order to set out a rational basis for such a finding; no such endeavours were noted in Ducale or the present case.

This decision by Clarke J relies on the decisions of Hogan J in R.X. & Others v. The Minister [2010] IEHC 466, and Cooke J in Hassan Sheikh Ali v. The Minister [2011] IEHC 115, citing that the second most common reason for refusal by the FRU section, that is the refugee’s personal circumstances and prospects in Ireland are such that he/she cannot maintain family members in the State, is in fact an invalid consideration in relation to the assessment of dependency (though potentially relevant to the exercise of discretion should dependency be established).

Clarke J in her conclusion affirmed the need for guidelines in relation to this criterion to be outlined, in order to provide clarity and transparency within the currently ambiguous family reunification process. In her conclusion she held:

 ‘It is not for this Court to set down guidelines as to the exercise of Ministerial discretion under s. 18(4) but a system must, sooner rather than later, stop the haemorrhage of scarce resources in defending flawed FRU decisions and instead ensure that vulnerable refugees do not endlessly pursue futile applications, thus depleting their own financial and emotion reserves. If refugees were better informed on what constitutes dependency and that conditions are de facto applied to family reunification applications, their attentions might be better directed towards obtaining language skills, training, qualifications, work experience and ultimately employment in Ireland before applying again for family reunification.’ [paragraph 28]

From this decision, Ms Justice Clarke makes her opinion clear that:

·   The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner must attempt to investigate such cases more thoroughly, in order to provide the Court with a rational basis for a finding such as in the case at hand, entail that the ‘dependency’ is not of an adequate standard to satisfy s. 18 (4).

·   A system needs to be adopted to provide a level of guidance in respect to such applications.

We would submit that many of the Minister’s decisions to refuse family reunification to refugees under Section 18 (4) of the Refugee Act 1996 are flawed, as most turn on the point of dependency. If the Minister does not set down clear guidelines as to what constitutes dependency, applicants are denied a fair procedure and effective remedy. It is of great concern to our office to see the inconsistent decisions made in respect of our client’s applications under Section 18 (4). We call on the Minister to follow through on Ms Justice Clarke’s recommendations, and provide a clear and transparent determination process for refugee family reunification applicants. 

Brophy Solicitors
26.02.13

HIGH COURT CHALLENGE TO MINISTER'S REFUSAL TO PROCESS AFGHAN REFUGEE’S APPLICATION FOR FAMILY REUNIFICATION

This morning, Mr Justice Peart of the High Court granted our client leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings against the Minister for refusing to process and determine his application for Family Reunification in respect of his wife and young daughter. Our client, who is an Afghan refugee, submitted the application for Family Reunification for his wife and daughter in November 2009, some two years ago. 

When we were first instructed on the case in August 2011, we made strong submissions to the Minister that our client had a statutory entitlement to be reunited with his wife and daughter, pursuant to Section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996 as amended. We also submitted that the delay in determining the application was in breach of our clients rights under Irish and EU law, and highlighted previous guidance from the High Court that a reasonable processing timeframe would be between six and twelve months.

To the distress of our client, the Family Reunification Section responded to confirm that his application had been “on hold” since September 2010 because the Minister was investigating his case for a possible revocation of his refugee status. Our client had never been notified of this proposal to revoke his refugee status, or the postponement of this family reunification application. Furthermore, he had no understanding as to what grounds the Minister was making this proposal.  We wrote numerous letters to the Minster Decisions Unit of the Department seeking a copy of the notification of a proposal to revoke and the grounds upon which this proposal was made, but neither were provided to us in breach of the Minister’s statutory obligation pursuant to Section 21 (3) of the Refugee Act 1996.  Meanwhile, the Family Reunification Section continued to refuse to process and determine the application.

 

Our client was initially very reluctant to resolve this matter by way of High Court proceedings, as he previously had to bring a High Court case to challenge the initial refusal of the Minister to grant him refugee status, and that process had taken approximately three years. We therefore submitted a Freedom of Information Application to the Minister in an attempt to find out what reasons the Minister had for refusing to process his family reunification application and proposing to revoke his refugee status. Unfortunately, nearly all the relevant documents were withheld on the basis that an investigation was being carried out.

Our client is understandably distraught by the on going delay of two years in determining his application for Family Reunification. His wife is now pregnant with their second child and they live in very difficult conditions as exiled refugees in Pakistan. The family had hoped and planned to have their child born in Ireland, in which case he or she would be an Irish citizen by birth.  Our client was therefore left with no option but to bring the matter to the High Court to seek an order compelling the Minister to proceed with his application to be reunited with his family.

Despite the fact that leave to bring Judicial Review proceedings has now been issued, we hope for our client’s sake that this matter can still be resolved in the short term. If the Minister provides an undertaking to consider and determine the family reunification application within the coming weeks, and provides our client with a proper proposal to revoke refugee status clearly stating the grounds upon which the proposal is made, there would be no need for the case to proceed to a substantive hearing before the High Court. In this way, lengthy further delays would be avoided for our clients, as would substantial legal costs.

8.11.11

Brophy Solicitors

The Family Reunification Process for Refugees

Each month, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner publish a statistical report in respect of both the Asylum and Family Reunification Applications currently being assessed. On reviewing the report this month, we were struck by the statistics in respect of the Family Reunification application process. We learned that between January 2011 and the 31^st July 2011, ORAC has received 148 applications, including 258 dependants. This is an average of 21 applications a month. This is not an exceptionally large number of applications. Of these applications, most of the applicants are refugees from Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Each of these countries are, or have recently been, in serious conflict and each are to some degree suffering from large scale humanitarian crisises. From our experience working with clients from these countries,  many of the applications would be submitted respect of the refugee’s spouse and minor children, and thus would fall into the Non Discretionary category. This means that the Minister is obliged to grant the application on the basis that the Minister is satisfied that the subjects of the applications fit within the spouse/minor child category. It has long been accepted by the High Court that non discretionary applications should require far less investigation and processing time as compared with discretionary applications. 

Therefore, why then is the average processing time for Family Reunification applications approximately two years?

We regard all applications for Family Reunification to be urgent, and some extremely urgent.  We believe that it is completely unacceptable that a family member of a refugee who has an entitlement to travel to and reside in Ireland should wait in a refugee camp, sometimes in a famine zone, for an average of two years  before receiving the green light from the Department of Justice. The fact that many of the cases we work on involve applicants aged between 18 to 23 who came to the State as minor children and are now applying to be re united with their parents and siblings makes this delay nothing short of scandalous.

We appeal to the Department of Justice on behalf of our clients to expedite the current processing times for the Family Reunification process to a more reasonable period of no more than six months per application. 

 

Brophy Solicitors

1.9.11