The High Court has rejected an application by an undocumented Zimbabwean woman challenging the refusal of residence permission under the State's regularisation scheme for long-term undocumented migrants.
The applicant, identified as VM, said she entered Ireland in July 2010 and had remained here continuously. She said that after experiencing employment exploitation she survived through informal work, accommodation and support provided by friends and members of her community.
The scheme required her to demonstrate continuous undocumented residence for four years immediately before January 31, 2022, continuing until her application in July 2022.
VM had no bank account, PPS number, medical card, utility bills or tenancy records and had little interaction with State bodies. Her application instead relied on character references, photographs and money-transfer records. Several transfers from 2018 to 2021 were made by a friend in Ireland to people identified as VM's son and son-in-law in Zimbabwe. Supporting letters said the friend had sent money on VM's behalf.
The Minister ultimately found that this material did not satisfactorily establish VM's continuous residence during each of the required years. Her appeal within the scheme was refused in December 2023.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley held that the Minister had been entitled to reach that conclusion. While the scheme's list of acceptable documents was not exhaustive and letters from friends could support an application, such material did not have to be accepted as sufficient proof by itself.
The judge also rejected the argument that evidence of VM's residence between 2010 and January 2018 should have established the later qualifying period. The scheme specifically required proof covering 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 and continuing to the application date.
The court stressed that the scheme was an ex gratia administrative scheme rather than a determination of VM's wider immigration rights. Her separate representations seeking permission to remain under the Immigration Act 1999 were unaffected.
The judicial review reliefs were refused, with costs and final orders left for a subsequent hearing.