Decision
Ms. X and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (the Department)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157932-H4M1X9
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157932-H4M1X9
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records relating to the applicant held by the Department’s Family Reunification Unit, on the basis that no further records exist or can be found.
27 August 2025
The applicant in this case was represented by a solicitor during the course of the review and therefore all references to communications with the applicant in this decision should be taken to include communications with the applicant’s solicitor where appropriate. In a request dated 13 August 2024, the applicant sought access to all records which included her personal information held by the Family Reunification Unit (FRU) of the Department.
In a decision dated 26 September 2024, the Department said it had decided to grant the request and released a copy of a family reunification file relating to the applicant, comprising 132 pages. On 11 October 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the Department’s decision on the basis that the file contained very few internal records. On 12 November 2024, the Department affirmed its original decision. It said all records held by FRU had been provided. On 2 April 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision.
During the course of the review, following engagements with this office, the Department located one additional record it deemed to come within the scope of the applicant’s request and it provided the applicant with a copy of the record.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outline above, and to the correspondence between this office and both parties on the matter I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The Department’s position is that it has, at this stage, released all relevant records coming within the scope of the applicant’s request. The Department’s position essentially comprises a refusal to grant access to any further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act which provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found.
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the Department was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to additional records relating to the applicant in the Department’s Family Reunification Unit on the basis that additional records do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps were undertaken to ascertain their whereabouts.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at his/her decision and I also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in such cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In correspondence with this office, the applicant explained that upon reviewing the records released, she noted a significant absence of internal communications between members of the FRU concerning her application. She said the vast majority of records released were documents that she had already submitted, such as her application materials, and email correspondence between the FRU and her legal representatives. She said she believes that there should be additional records related to the internal handling of these communications within the FRU.
Specifically, the applicant said that comments contained in a brief internal email exchange suggests prior discussions about her case and yet there is a notable absence of correspondence reflecting such discussions. She said that given the complexity and significance of applications such as hers, she would have expected more comprehensive internal communications, including deliberations on the reasons for the rejection of the initial application and evaluations of the arguments raised in the request for administrative review submitted by her legal representatives.
In its submissions, the Department noted the applicant’s assertion that it failed to produce “internal FRU records ”. It said it conducted searches in the following areas:
• Email account, FRU Unit Higher Executive Officer (HEO)
• Email account inbox and sent folders of the FRU Unit. It said this FRU IPA Mailin email address is used by staff of the FRU Unit to communicate with applicants and through which applicants can communicate with the FRU Unit
• AISIP – A database used by FRU staff
• The applicant’s paper file
The Department said its position is that apart from the records released to the applicant, the further records sought do not exist and were never created. It said it is the usual practice that conversations around issues related to files of applicants for family reunification happen in the office where it is possible to consult and reference the physical file or through a telephone conversation. It said it is not usual practice to either deliberate or converse with colleagues through email regarding an application. It said reviews, discussions, observations or considerations of submissions would usually be discussed at in-person meetings in the office. It said there are no internal communications around the determination in the applicant’s case as there was no need to create any.
On the question of what type of records would generally be created in cases such as the applicant’s, the Department said such records would include documentation submitted by the applicant, copies of correspondence to and from the applicant’s legal representative, and any administrative documents related to the application, e.g. copies of correspondence from other areas of the Department, in this case the International Protection Office and the Ministerial Decisions Unit, and also, outside agencies such as Tusla as the applicant was a minor. It said it does not routinely create records of the type sought by the applicant. It said that if such records did exist, they would be uploaded to AISIP, the tracking system used in the Department’s Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) where actions taken on an application and all records of appointments and correspondence sent and received are recorded. It said physical documents received are recorded on AISIP and then attached to an applicant’s hard copy file.
The Department added that FRU file folders are generated once a new application is received in the unit. It said that copies of correspondence are attached to the file in chronological order. A secure pouch is also attached to the folders to store all documentation submitted in support of an application, such as passports, marriage/birth certificates, etc. It noted that all hard copy FRU files are stored within the office space due to the need for original documentation related to applications to be physically submitted into the unit for assessment. It said physical files are needed to organise and securely store the original documentation. It said staff of the FRU Unit consult with the physical files in order to carry out their work in making decisions on the applications. It said they do not review files remotely or online and all relevant records would therefore be hard copy and held on individual files for each applicant.
The Department further said that when an application is finalised, the file is sent on to the appropriate section within Immigration Service Delivery (ISD) for further action if required. It said “Dormant” files are sent to the Department’s ISD Registry Unit for appropriate storage. It said files can be retrieved when necessary. It said all files have a unique file reference number and an application number for the immigration type of permission being applied for. It noted these numbers are for record management purposes. It said records on AISIP are never destroyed.
This Office’s Investigator provided the applicant with details of the Department’s submissions. In response, the applicant suggested that the searches conducted by the Department were insufficient. She said the searches appear to have been limited to a named staff member and certain shared systems, but they did not include other FRU employees or areas within the FRU that were involved in this matter. She said that based on her review of the records released, she had identified four other staff members who were involved in the matter and who may have relevant records.
This Office’s Investigator sought further clarification from the Department on the matter. In response, the Department said that further searches were conducted by the four named FRU staff members using search terms, including the applicant’s name and Person ID number. It noted that the Person ID is a unique identifier each family reunification applicant is given (as well as other applicants to other areas within Immigration Service Delivery). The Department said that three of the FRU staff members did not identify any further records, other than those already released to the applicant. It said that the fourth FRU staff member found one record relating to the applicant, a questionnaire translated into English. As I have outlined above, the Department released that record in full.
The Investigator provided the applicant with details of the additional searches undertaken. In response, the applicant said she had no further submissions to make but asked that the review continue to ensure that the matter is fully and comprehensively reviewed.
The question I must consider is whether the Department has, at this stage, taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. Having regard to the details of its submissions and to the additional searches undertaken during the course of the review, I am satisfied that it has. I appreciate that the applicant appears to be of the view that further relevant internal records should having regard to what she considers to be a complex case. However, we do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records sought ought to exist.
Having regard to the evidence before me, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further specific searches might be warranted, I find that the Department has, at this stage, taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it has adequately explained why no further records exist or can be found. Accordingly, I find that the Department was justified in refusing access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department’s decision to refuse access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to any further records held in the Family Reunification Unit of the Department relating to the applicant on the ground that no further relevant records exist.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator