Supreme Court refuses further appeal for man seeking to bring family from Afghanistan

An Afghan national granted international protection status because of a risk of serious harm to him if sent back to the country has failed to get an appeal to the Supreme Court over a refusal to permit up to five brothers and his mother to join him in Ireland.

The man arrived in August 2015 and was granted a declaration of subsidiary protection with effect from May 2019.

In 2020 he applied for family reunification in relation to three of his brothers, but those applications were refused because his siblings did not come within the legal definition of qualifying family member and because the application was outside the time limit.

In 2021 he made six applications under the non-EEA (European Economic Area) join family policy for his mother and five brothers. Those applications were also refused.

He appealed claiming, among other things, that his father had been presumed dead, his mother was a widow caring for his younger siblings and that the family faced serious difficulties and danger following the return to power of the Taliban in August 2021.

The appeal was refused in September 2023 and he then brought judicial review proceedings against the Minister for Justice, who opposed the challenge.

In 2025, the High Court quashed the decision of the Minister, who then appealed the matter to the Court of Appeal (CoA).

Last April, the CoA set aside the High Court decision and the man then sought a further appeal on a point of public importance to the Supreme Court.

In a determination refusing a further appeal, the Supreme Court said the man contended that a further appeal would raise issues beyond the particular assessment of evidence in his case.

He submitted that the appeals court had erred in its approach to the evidential burden applicable where he contended that a decision-maker had failed to consider a material factor.

[ After five years of Taliban rule, Afghanistan continues to haemorrhage peopleOpens in new window ]

He maintained that where the decision did not disclose any substantive engagement with an important humanitarian consideration, it should not be sufficient for the Minister to rely upon a general statement that all material has been considered.

He also argued that the CoA failed to give appropriate significance to the fact that he held a declaration of subsidiary protection which he said was a particularly important consideration in an application for exceptional humanitarian family reunification.

The exceptional humanitarian circumstances of his family, he maintained, had not been considered adequately.

He submitted that the CoA had erred in treating this aspect of the case as insufficiently pleaded, particularly where the circumstances were advanced as part of the overall claim that the Minister had failed to exercise the exceptional discretion lawfully.

The Supreme Court said the CoA had not held that subsidiary protection status was irrelevant to the exercise of discretion, nor did it had it suggested that a decision maker could lawfully disregard a material humanitarian consideration.

Its conclusion was that, having regard to the terms of the decision and the material before the Minister, the man had not established that his protection status or the relevant humanitarian circumstances had been overlooked.

The Supreme Court also said no aspect of its ruling in this case had precedential value as a matter of law.