Rohingya Muslim challenges refusal to let the woman he married in Bangladesh after being granted asylum come to Ireland This spent eight years in direct provision from 2008 before getting refugee status in September 2016. This is the same guy who won his case over the absolute ban on asylum seekers working here. He also wants to bring his children here but that application has yet to be decided upon. After getting refugee status, he flew to Bangladesh married a second wife because his first had died in 2010. Then he flew back to Ireland and applied to be joined by his second wife, brother and two kids by his first marriage. On May 16th, the Minister refused permission for his wife on the grounds that, under section 56.9 of the International Protection Act 2015, before a spouse can join a refugee here the refugee must be married at the time they seek protection. The man and his wife are challenging that refusal. He is also seeking, if necessary, various declarations including that section 56.9.a is repugnant to the Constitution and discriminatory. He claims that from 2008, when he first sought refugee status, and 2016, when he got it, the right to family reunification was governed by section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996. Under section 18, a refugee’s spouse fell within the definition of a family member provided the marriage existed when the application for family reunification, rather than protection status, was made. He also says because he was banned from working for eight years until he got refugee status, he cannot meet the minimum financial threshold applicable to family reunification for non-nationals lawfully residing in the State, which is €30,000 in each of the last two years. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/rohingya-man-challenges-refusal-to-let-his-wife-come-to-ireland-1.3316367 The legal industry must be making a mint of these cases because I know he sure isn't paying.