About us

Irish Immigration Solicitors and Lawyers

Our services

We provide expert legal advice and representation in relation to all aspects of the Immigration process and can simplify what can often be a complex process.  We provide initial legal advice in an accessible way and given our detailed understanding of all aspects of Immigration law, we can assist you in making the strongest application possible.  We also provide expert legal advice and where necessary, legal representation, in circumstances where further legal action in your case may be necessary.  Our services are provided in a prompt and professional manner and we are available to guide you through the process attentively at every stage. 

The following are examples of some of the areas we cover:

Immigration Services:

Deportation/Removal

Naturalisation applications;

Change of Status;

EU Treaty Rights;

Visas;

Spouse or de facto partner of an Irish national;

Non-EEA national family members

Family Reunification (Persons granted International Protection);

Employment permits;

Travel Documents;

Students;

Non-EEA national parent of Irish citizen child

Immigrant Investor programme

Please note that we provide advice and representation in relation to all types of immigration applications.

Find us on Facebook

Phone: +353 1 6712773

Email: info@yor.ie

www.irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

Cathal N. Young, O’Reilly & Co. www.yor.ie

Cathal Young Notary Public www.irishnotarypublic.ie

Irish Immigration Lawyers and Experts Dublin

High Court finds engagement of Article 8 rights in unsettled migrant case

Irish Immigration Law Solicitors Cathal N Young O'Reilly & Co. 1-2 Lower Leeson Street, Dublin - Cathal Young Notary Public In the recent decision of the High Court in AVSF v. Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 634, Burns J. quashed a decision of the Minister refusing an extension of permission to the Applicant, on the basis of the failure by the Minister to correctly consider the rights of the Applicant under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie
AVSF v. Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 634
The central issue arising in this case was whether exceptional circumstances arose such that the applicant’s private life rights were engaged.

In the recent decision of the High Court in AVSF v. Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 634, Burns J. quashed a decision of the Minister refusing an extension of permission to the Applicant, on the basis of the failure by the Minister to correctly consider the rights of the Applicant under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Applicant, a Colombian national, originally entered the State on a student visa in 2012. His mother has lawfully resided in the State since 2001. The Applicant’s permission was extended a number of times. He sought a Stamp 4 permission on the expiry of his last existing permission and this was refused. The Applicant sought to challenge this refusal by way of Judicial Review.

The Applicant’s mother left him in Columbia to come to work in Ireland when he was 10 years of age. He was left in the care of his grandmother and uncle and was the victim of sexual abuse by his uncle over many years. The Applicant joined his mother when he was 21 and suffers from psychosis. According to a medical report submitted to the Minister, the applicant had made progress in relation to his condition but would require medical supervision over the medium term and possibly indefinitely.

The Applicant had progressed his education in the State and had obtained a degree. In relation to the Applicant’s Article 8 private life rights in the State, the Minister had found that these were not engaged. As the Applicant was an unsettled migrant, in order for the rights to be engaged, exceptional circumstances must have been found to arise.

The Court determined that the circumstances arising were exceptional, such that the Minister was incorrect to conclude otherwise. Where private life rights are engaged, it is then necessary for the Minister to justify the interference caused by removal, by reference to Article 8.2. Exceptional circumstances.

The central issue arising in this case was whether exceptional circumstances arose such that the applicant’s private life rights were engaged. In this regard, it is interesting to note the decision in Agbonlahor v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 166. Here, the High Court considered whether exceptional circumstances arose in the case of a very young child who had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and was receiving treatment in the State. The child was due to be deported and information was submitted to the Minister that there was an absence in Nigeria of educational and medical treatment that would ensure the full development of the child.

The Court found that even in circumstances where removal of a very young child would have such profound consequences for the child’s development, exceptional circumstances nevertheless did not arise.

The Court in AVSF followed the Court of Appeal decision in CI v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2015] 3 IR 385. Here, the Court of Appeal also considered the test of exceptional circumstances in relation to the Article 8 private life rights of unsettled migrants. The Court in CI in fact cites the decision in Agbonlahor, with the Court noting at para. 46 of its decision that the approach taken by it was consistent with the view taken by Feeney J, in Agbonlahor.It is interesting to note that in Agbonlahor, when considering the test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ the Court had regard to the case-law relating to Article 3 medical claims and was satisfied that the approach in these cases was applicable to cases involving Article 8 private life rights.

The case-law on Article 3 medical claims appears to establish a particularly high threshold for the establishment of exceptional circumstances. For example, in his decision in D.E. v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IESC 16, O’Donnell J. refers to the “very high threshold” set by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to a breach of Article 3 in medical claims and the necessity to ‘maintain that threshold.’ The case involved a seriously ill young child with sickle cell disease who was receiving treatment for his condition in the State but who was due to be deported.

The applicant argued that he would not receive treatment in the country of proposed deportation such that his removal would be in breach of Article 3.

O’Donnell J. went on to hold that ‘the cases in which Article 3 will be violated because of a natural occurring illness and the lack of sufficient resources in the receiving country, must remain exceptional’ and that this was ‘illustrated by the facts of this case.’ Despite the extremely serious health issues of the applicant who was a very young child, the Court held that on the basis of the evidence submitted to the Minister, which included a medical report, exceptional circumstances did not arise.

Lower threshold?

It is interesting to note that despite what would appear to be the very compelling circumstances of the applicants in both Agbonlahor and D.E., where the applicants were very young children with serious health conditions, the Court in each case was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances arose.

On the other hand, the applicant in AVSF, an adult who notwithstanding his undoubtedly traumatic history, managed to successfully complete a degree in the State and who also, according to the medical evidence submitted, managed to make progress in relation to his mental health difficulties, was found by the Court to have established exceptional circumstances.

Does this represent a lowering of the threshold for the establishment of exceptional circumstances in Article 8 private life cases and potentially in Article 3 medical claims?

Family Reunification – can I bring my family to Ireland?

Family Reunification – can I bring my family to Ireland?
Your right to have a family member join you in the State depends on the nature of your permission.  An EU citizen who is exercising EU Treaty Rights in the State has extensive rights to have their ‘nuclear’ family members join them and may be entitled to have certain other types of family members join them in the State.  A person granted International Protection has a right under the International Protection Act 2015 to have their ‘nuclear’ family members join them in the State.  An Irish citizen is entitled to apply, pursuant to Ministerial policy, to have their spouse or de facto partner join them in the State.  This application is based on the Minister’s policy but rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights also arise.  For more information, contact us.  
Phone: 01 6712773
Email: info@yor.ie
A person granted International Protection has a right under the International Protection Act 2015 to have their ‘nuclear’ family members join them in the State.

Your right to have a family member join you in the State depends on the nature of your permission. An EU citizen who is exercising EU Treaty Rights in the State has extensive rights to have their ‘nuclear’ family members join them and may be entitled to have certain other types of family members join them in the State.

A person granted International Protection has a right under the International Protection Act 2015 to have their ‘nuclear’ family members join them in the State.

An Irish citizen is entitled to apply, pursuant to Ministerial policy, to have their spouse or de facto partner join them in the State.

This application is based on the Minister’s policy but rights under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights also arise. For more information, contact us. Phone: 01 6712773Email: info@yor.ie

Irish Immigration Law – http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

Removal from the State – did you know?

Certain family members of EU citizens who have exercised EU Treaty Rights in the State, but are no longer doing so, can only be removed from the State under the Citizenship Directive and not under domestic law.

This means that a deportation order under s. 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 cannot be made and the person can only be removed under Article 15 of the Citizenship Directive.

A Removal Order under Article 15 expires once the person is removed.

This means that in certain circumstances, the person may be able to re-enter the State.

Contact us for further information.

Irish Immigration Law Solicitors

Phone: 01 6712773

Email: info@yor.ie

Irish Immigration Law – http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

What can I expect as part of an Immigration decision?

Irish Immigration Lawyers What can I expect as part of an Immigration decision?  Where a permission is being granted, there is normally no obligation on the Minister to give reasons for the decision.  Where the decision is a refusal however, the Minister is obliged to give reasons for this.  The extent of the reasons necessary will vary depending on the type of decision.  For example, if the decision is a discretionary one made under Ministerial policy, the extent of the reasons necessary may be more limited.  If however the decision involves legal rights, the reasons must be more detailed.   You are also entitled to fair procedures as part of a decision although the extent of the these will vary depending on the nature of the decision.  A fair and balanced consideration of rights, where these arise, is also necessary and if the decision involves Ministerial discretion, the Minister must not ‘fetter’ her discretion.  If you have queries or concerns about a Ministerial decision you have received, come and talk to us. Phone: 01 6712773 Email: info@yor.ie

Where a permission is being granted, there is normally no obligation on the Minister to give reasons for the decision.

Where the decision is a refusal however, the Minister is obliged to give reasons for this. The extent of the reasons necessary will vary depending on the type of decision. For example, if the decision is a discretionary one made under Ministerial policy, the extent of the reasons necessary may be more limited.

If however the decision involves legal rights, the reasons must be more detailed. You are also entitled to fair procedures as part of a decision although the extent of the these will vary depending on the nature of the decision.

A fair and balanced consideration of rights, where these arise, is also necessary and if the decision involves Ministerial discretion, the Minister must not ‘fetter’ her discretion. If you have queries or concerns about a Ministerial decision you have received, come and talk to us.

Phone: 01 6712773

Email: info@yor.ie

Irish Immigration Law – http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

High Court quashes permission to remain review refusal decision for failure by Minster to provide reasons

Irish Immigration Experts
Courts quashed a decision of the Minister to refuse permission to remain on foot of a review application under s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015.

In the recent decision of the High Court in Z.B. & Ors. v. Minister for Justice [2021] IEHC 588, Burns J. quashed a decision of the Minister to refuse permission to remain on foot of a review application under s. 49(7) of the International Protection Act 2015. The Applicants argued before the Court that the Minister had failed to provide reasons in relation to the conclusion reached that deportation would not expose them to a risk of refoulement contrary to s. 50(1) of the 2015 Act. As part of the review application, representations were made by the Applicants which called into question certain findings of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. Those concerns were rejected by the Minister in the review decision. However, the Court was satisfied that no reasons were given by the Minister for doing so. In reaching its finding, the Court referred to the independent task imposed on the Minister in considering the risk of refoulment under s. 50 and the fact that the Minister is not obliged to accept the findings of the protection bodies. In quashing the decision, the Court found that the Minister failed to engage with the representations of the Applicant and that in light of her obligations under s. 50 of the 2015 Act, in conjunction with s. 49(7), the Minister was required to explain her reasons for her acceptance of the earlier protection decisions, in light of the particular representations and information submitted to her. The decision of the Court highlights the importance of the carrying out of by the Minister of an independent assessment of the risk of refoulement under s. 50 of the 2015 Act, the requirement to fully engage with all representations submitted by an Applicant and the obligation to give reasons for her decision.The full judgment is available at the following link:https://www.courts.ie/…/314dd9…/2021_IEHC_588.pdf/pdf…If you need advice in relation to any rights based application, come and talk to us.

Phone: 01 6712773

Email: info@yor.ie

Irish Immigration Law Solicitors http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie/
European Court of Human Rights

Irish Immigration Law – http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

European Court of Human Rights finds violation of private life rights of settled migrant as a result of an expulsion order and permanent ban on re-entry.

In its recent decision in Abdi v. Denmark, the European Court of Human Rights has found that the issuing of an expulsion order and a life-long ban on re-entry against a settled migrant is in breach of the applicant’s private life rights under Article 8 ECHR. The applicant had lived in Denmark since he was four years old and was convicted of a number of offences, following which he was ordered with expulsion with a permanent ban on re-entry. The Court considered a number of factors, including the fact that the applicant arrived in Denmark at a very young age and had lawfully resided there for approximately twenty years. He therefore had very strong ties with Denmark while his ties with his country of origin were virtually non-existent. It was concluded that the decision was disproportionate and in breach of Article 8. It is interesting to note that this breach was found on the basis of the applicant’s private life rights alone. In most of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a breach of Article 8 has been found on the basis of family and private life rights combined. The full decision of the European Court of Human Rights is available at the following link:https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng…

We provide expert legal advice in relation to your rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Irish Immigration Law Experts - Solicitors
Are you waiting on an Immigration decision? How long is too long?

Irish Immigration Law – http://irishimmigrationsolicitors.ie

Are you waiting on an Immigration decision? How long is too long?

Have you been waiting for a decision on an immigration application for an excessive amount of time?

In most applications, there is no particular prescribed time frame that a decision must be issued within. The only exception is in relation to an application for a Residence Card under EU Treaty Rights, which must be decided within 6 months. In relation to other types of applications, the length of time that a decision must issue within varies considerably. For example, where a person has made representations under s.3 of the Immigration Act 1999 as to why a deportation order should not be made against them, it may take at least 12 to 18 months, if not longer, for a decision to issue. In relation to a citizenship application, where the application is straight-forward and no issues arise, a decision should normally issue within approximately two years at the latest. There are various remedies available where there is an excessive delay in receiving a decision on an immigration or citizenship application. If you have concerns, come and talk to us.