Courts / Ireland / Report

Minister correct to refuse residency to woman found to have entered into sham marriage, Supreme Court rules

Summary

The Supreme Court has upheld the Minister for Justice's decision to refuse residency under the Special Scheme to two non-EEA nationals. In a unanimous judgment delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley, the court ruled that the Minister correctly engaged with all submitted materials, including character references and work history. The respondents, Indian national Sangeeta Rana and Pakistani national Lehrasib Ali, had previously obtained student visas before 2011. After their permissions expired, both acquired residence permits through marriages to non-Irish EU citizens. The Minister revoked these permissions, alleging that Ms Rana entered into a marriage of convenience and that Mr Ali submitted false documents regarding his wife's whereabouts. Although the Court of Appeal had previously quashed the Minister's decision, finding insufficient engagement with the respondents' submissions, the Supreme Court reversed this, stating that a statement indicating all material was considered was sufficient. The court noted that the respondents' actions could be seen as an attack on the integrity of immigration systems. However, the judgment clarified that both individuals have separately been granted permission to remain in Ireland under the Regularisation of Long Term Undocumented Migrants scheme. The court found no inconsistency in failing the good conduct requirement for the Special Scheme while passing it for the regularisation scheme, affirming that the Minister was right to refuse the Special Scheme applications.

Who, what, where, when and why

What: Report matter: Minister correct to refuse residency to woman found to have entered into sham marriage, Supreme Court rules. Procedural stage: appeal

When:

• October 2009 Other
• October 2014 Other
• September 2014 Other
• March 2015 Other
• October 2016 Other
• September 2017 Other
• February 2011 Other
• September 2012 Other
• December 2014 Other
• 2005 and 2010 Other
• 2024-10-18 Publication

Why: After a High Court ruling upholding the Minister's decision on the revocations, both applicants successfully obtained a quashing of that decision on appeal because the Minister was found not to have "engaged sufficiently with the submissions made by the respondents at the review stage". CNI source report

Case subjects

Places mentioned

Topics

Stage Appeal

Read the original CNI report