A mother who has a full-time care for her disabled son has won High Court orders directed by the Minister for Justice to reconsider a visa for her two other children to join her in Ireland of Africa.
There were "serious deficiencies" in the decision minister refusing appeals by the woman over the rejection of applications for two & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; tag family & nbsp; Visas for the two children, Mary. Justice Max Barrett ruled.
Mother, a native of an African country, is an Irish citizen and her disabled son has an Irish resident.
Another son, 20, and the female teenage daughter, lives with their father in an African country, but it is claimed that the father is such an age he cares for them hard, the judge notices.
The mother sought judicial review after the minister refused to appeal against the decisions of the Irish Embassy in the relevant African country in May 2017 to dismiss the visas.
In his judgment, Mr. Justin Barrett said that the significant deficiencies in the decision-making ministry include a statement when the patrons' immediate frauds begin asking "no medical documents have been provided".
That was wrong because a medical certificate was provided, the judge said.
In this case, there were no "special" situations in the case that had occurred in the context of the government-wide unification policy of the Non-EA.
The test that is defined in the policy is "optional" circumstances and it was unclear just what form was shown in the case that the judge said.
The son who is resident here is so disabled and unwilling that his mother can not work outside the home to bring up the financial threshold identified in the family reunification policy, he noted.
A medical doctor / registrar in a "well-known health service provider" provided a letter on a cautious papier stating that the disabled son would "benefit huddy" from reunification with his siblings but the decision maker said it was "not clear link" between That doctor and the son, the judge said.
The court did not know what the decision maker was meant by, he said.
If a decision maker held a letter was "phoney" or that a particular physician was not propaganda, it was about to address that, however, no such thing was processed here, he said.
The disregard of that medical evidence for the reasons stated involved accurately and unreasonably, he considered.
Those and other administrative law defenses justify the minister's decisions being quashed and the matter being reimbursed for the referral, the judge ruled.