Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
2.������ As can be seen from the Determination of this Court granting leave, the issue at the heart of this appeal is therefore the extent or breadth of the definition of �child� for the purpose of family reunification and whether that definition could include a minor who is said to be the child of the applicant for family reunification but who is not a biological or adopted child of the applicant.
3.������ The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter �the UNHCR�) was given leave to appear before this Court as an amicus curiae pursuant to an application of the 29th November, 2019.
4.������ I propose in this section of the judgment to set out some details of Mr. X�s background and to refer to some litigation that Mr. X was involved in previously, arising out of the issues that are central to these proceedings.�
��������� ���� �As the applicant is not in a position to undergo DNA testing, the Minister in exercising her discretion has decided not to grant the application for family reunification.�
8.������ The door was not completely closed to a further application by Mr. X.� It was noted that if he was granted guardianship and this was recognised in Ireland, he could make a further application.�
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.