Challenge to decision refusing family reunification was premature when alternative remedies were available

Judicial review – asylum and immigration – Afghani national challenging the decision refusing application for family unification – claim for asylum rejected in UK – came to this jurisdiction – applied for international protection here under a false name - despite ministerial inquiries and his confession of his fraud on the protection system, he was granted subsidiary protection - applied for family reunification for two brothers – married - no evidence in the proceedings that they ever met each other, knew each other or had a meaningful relationship - applied for family reunification in respect of his wife - marriage post-dated the protection application – application refused – claimed that family reunification provisions are unconstitutional or incompatible with the ECHR - amendment to the statement of grounds - o identify a comparator for the purposes of a discrimination claim - discriminated against vis-à-vis a person granted international protection who married before seeking international protection - alternative remedy - non-EEA Family Reunification Policy or another departmental policy known as IHAP - contends that such schemes do not provide an alternative remedy because one cannot have a scheme repealing or overruling legislation - inadequacy of the proposed alternative remedy - Minister has a broad discretion to grant permissions to the applicant’s family members if he thinks it is appropriate - doctrine that exceptional circumstances could include a case where one is deprived of proper consideration at first instance does not really apply here because the legislation itself precludes the application being made and there are no other exceptional circumstances that are apparent – Court upholds plea of prematurity and alternative remedy - question as to whether and to what extent proxy marriages are or should be recognised in Irish law - scope of constitutional equality - discrimination claim generally requires a comparator - applicant has not demonstrated either that the distinction lacks a legitimate aim or that it is disproportionate to such aim - scope of a declaration of incompatibility – compatibility with the ECHR – State’s reasons are legitimate and that the legislation is proportional for ECHR purposes - damages do not arise - judicial review refused.