The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by M.H. against a Minister for Justice decision finding that his marriage to a Romanian national was one of convenience for immigration purposes. The court held that fair procedures did not require an oral hearing in the circumstances. The appeal concerned the process leading to the finding, not whether the marriage was genuine. The appellant accepted that the Minister could revoke his EU Treaty Rights residence permission because the marriage had ended; success on this appeal would not itself give him an entitlement to a residence card.
M.H., a Bangladeshi national, came to Ireland in 2007 on a student visa. He married the Romanian national in Dublin in April 2014 and was granted a five-year residence card as the spouse of an EU citizen. At Dublin Airport in February 2019, immigration officials questioned him about the marriage. His former spouse told an official by phone that they had divorced in 2017, she had not spoken to him since, and she did not know he remained in Ireland. M.H. accepted that he eventually told officials the marriage was no longer subsisting, though accounts of the airport exchanges remained disputed.
In December 2019, the Minister set out concerns about the short period between the couple meeting and marrying, M.H.’s immigration position, the former spouse’s employment and presence in Ireland, and differences in address information. M.H. was invited to respond and provide evidence. His solicitor denied that the marriage was one of convenience but supplied no supporting documents. In January 2020, the Minister found the marriage was one of convenience and revoked the residence card. On review, the Minister upheld the finding on 11 April 2022 but set aside the separate conclusion that documents submitted in 2014 were false or misleading.
The High Court refused judicial review. On appeal, M.H. argued that the Minister should have interviewed him and his former spouse, and that disputed accounts and credibility issues required an oral process. The Minister argued that he had received notice of the concerns and a chance to answer them, but had not made a specific request for a hearing or supplied evidence addressing them.
The Court of Appeal said there is no automatic right to an oral hearing in this type of decision. Whether one is needed depends on the circumstances and the requirements of fair procedures. It considered that M.H. had been told the Minister’s concerns and could address them in writing, but had not provided documentary evidence of the relationship. The court also found that the dispute over how long the former spouses had been out of contact did not affect the central issue, given that the relationship had ended and the former spouse had left Ireland years earlier.
The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the absence of an oral hearing had not prevented a fair determination. It said the Minister appeared entitled to appeal costs. M.H. could seek a short hearing on costs by applying to the Registrar by 17 November 2023.