Family reunification and ordre public
Supreme Court judgment and order 23 June 2021, HR-2021-1345-A, (case no. 20-174954SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against judgment.
A, B, C, Selvhjelp for innvandrere og flyktninger (SEIF) (intervener), Norwegian Organisation for Asylum Seekers (intervener), D (intervener) (Counsel Georg Schjerven Hansen) v. The State represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (The Office of the Attorney General represented by Kaija Marie Folkestad Bjelland)
Justices: Webster, Falkanger, Ringnes, Bergh, Høgetveit Berg
A Syrian woman applied for family reunification with her husband for herself and the couple's two children. Her husband had asylum in Norway. The marriage had been contracted in 2012 in Syria, before the woman had reached the age of 13, and the children were born when she was 13 and 16, respectively. The Immigration authorities rejected her application arguing it would be offensive to Norwegian public policy to accept the marriage as a basis for residence, see the ordre public rule in section 18 a of the Marriage Act. The Supreme Court found that the rejection was invalid, pointing to the long time that had passed, the applicant's current age and genuine wish to continue the relationship with her husband and to the fact that it would be best for the children to grow up with both their parents. It was thus not obviously offensive to Norwegian public policy to accept the marriage as a basis for family reunification. The claim for a declaratory judgment for violation of Article 8 of the ECHR was ruled inadmissible.