High Court overturns decision to deny Gazan student visa

The High Court has overturned a decision by the Minister for Justice to refuse a study visa to a Gazan student and ordered that the application be reconsidered and a decision made within ten days.

In a hearing last week, lawyers representing the student argued that the decision to refuse the study visa was unlawful and irrational and should be set aside.

The Judicial Review centred on the case of one student, Shaymaa Abudalu, but her lawyer said it was hoped that this lead case would clarify issues for all of the students.

The court heard that Ms Abudalu has been offered a fully funded place on a four-year Engineering degree programme at UCC.

However, she cannot travel to Ireland to take up her place because her application for a study visa was refused on grounds that insufficient documentation had been submitted to support her application.

Today the High Court said there were "significant and demonstrable errors on the part of the decision maker".

These errors relate to a failure to consider documentaton which had been submitted by Ms Abudalu including a financial summary form and those demonstrating her proficiency in English. The State had argued that despite these errors, the overall decision to refuse a visa could stand.

Mr Justice Barr ruled that in this case it was not appropriate to let the overall decision stand.

He said the errors were not minor and were a substantial part of the applicant's case. He also said the usual appeal process was not a sufficient remedy as it would not be completed in time to allow her to take up the college place should her appeal succeed.

The refusal would also remain in place pending the appeal, preventing Ms Abudalu from obtaining a visa to enter the UK to take up a scholarship from another university, he said.

In a decision which may affect other similar cases, Judge Barr ruled the applicant had not established a legitimate expectation that applications from Palestinian students did not have to comply with the guidelines regarding supporting documentation.

'Complete change' in how visa applications considered

In a two day hearing last week Mr Justice Anthony Barr heard that Ms Abudalu's mother and her two sisters and brother were killed in an Israeli missile strike in March 2024. Her grandparents, her aunt, and other relations were also killed in the attack.

The court heard that Ms Abudalu was buried under rubble beside the body of one of her sisters for a number of hours, and was unable to walk for over a month as a result of injuries she sustained.

Described as an exceptional student over a year later she sat her final school exams - the equivalent of the Leaving Certificate - and obtained a score of 96.7%.

She and her father are the only surviving members of her immediate family.

The court heard that Ms Abudalu was not seeking an exception to immigration rules, rather that she was seeking what is required of her in making her application be considered in the light of the particular circumstances pertaining in Gaza.

Representing Ms Abudalu, barrister Sarah Jane Hillery said that between this year and last year there had been a "complete change" in the way that study visa applications from students in Gaza are considered by the State.

Ms Hillery said it was their understanding that while Gaza students awarded government scholarships this year had had their visas approved, those awarded scholarships fully funded by university and other private sources were being refused.

She said it was their understanding that while in the last two years decisions on study visas had been made by the Irish embassy in Tel Aviv, where certain administrative and documentary hurdles were not always applied, this year the processing of visas had been passed to the Department of Justice in Dublin.

Ms Hillery, who is instructed by Phoenix Law, argued that this shift had coincided with a dramatic increase in the amount of study visa refusals, and that this was not in keeping with Irish policy with regard to Gaza as reflected in pronouncements made by members of Government including the Minister for Justice and the Taoiseach, who referred to dealing with study visa applications "speedily and sympathetically", and adopting "a compassionate approach".

Ms Abudalu’s application was rejected on a number of grounds that her lawyers said were "generic" across 27 of this year’s visa refusals.

They included a failure to supply strong evidence that they will return home once their course of study is completed, which lawyers said was common to every single rejection.

Ms Hillery said the generic nature of the reasons for refusal was in contrast with the department's claim that individual applications were considered on their own merits.

She said that, in what was a "clear error", the reasons for rejection of Ms Abudalu's visa application included a claim that she had not submitted a completed financial summary form, when in fact she had.

Ms Abudalu's legal team said a requirement to submit bank statements did not take into account the complete collapse of the banking system in Gaza.

"In the face of what is recognised and accepted as happening in Gaza and in the face of confirmation from UCC that all costs will be met, [to request and rely on the submission of bank statements] is entirely irrational," Ms Hillery told the court.

Lawyers for the minister said a claim that there was a legitimate expectation that this year's applicants would be treated in a certain way, because of how previous applicants had been treated was unsupported by actual evidence.

Senior Counsel Eoin Carolan said cited correspondence to the universities in March of this year which stated that "all students will need to satisfy the criteria for the applicable visas".

He said the arguments put forward did not come close to constituting a "legitimate expectation".

Mr Carolan acknowledged there had been errors in the Department of Justice decision making process.

As well as failing to consider or acknowledge documents sent in support of Ms Abudalu's English language proficiency, he also agreed that it was an error to have disregarded a financial summary document that had been supplied.

However, he said there were a number of reasons given to justify refusal of Ms Abudalu's visa application which still stood.

He said the applicant had failed to submit required bank statements.

He said in her affidavit, that the applicant had stated she had not supplied the statements because her course of study was fully funded by UCC.

He said this was at odds with the position put forward by her lawyers who pointed to the collapse of the banking system in Gaza.

He said the reasons given for rejection of Ms Abudalu's study visa application included that she had not provided sufficient evidence of her academic ability. It was only in the course of her appeal that she had stated that the offer of a place on the undergraduate Engineering course at UCC was a competitive one.

Mr Carolan said in rejecting the application, that the decision maker had also found insufficient evidence of a strong obligation to return to Palestine when her course of study ended.

He said Ms Abudalu had provided no evidence, such as evidence of employment, ownership of property, or family ties.

"It was entirely reasonable for the decision maker to say I'm not satisfied," he said.

Mr Carolan said the applicant had not demonstrated that her primary reason to come here was for the purpose of study, and that she would return to her home country upon completion of her degree.