The High Court has refused an Egyptian national’s application to quash a decision revoking his residence card after the Minister for Justice found his marriage to an EU citizen was one of convenience.
In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2023, Ms Justice Bolger held that the Minister was entitled to conclude that the applicant had submitted false and misleading information about his spouse’s employment and that the marriage was not genuine. The court’s decision refused certiorari against the Minister’s review decision of 1 December 2021.
The applicant arrived in Ireland in 2008 without permission and married the Lithuanian national in June 2012. He received a five-year Stamp 4 residence permission in January 2013. In July 2013, after the Department sought updated information, he supplied payslips and an undated letter indicating that his spouse was working. The Minister later relied on tax information showing that she had ceased employment on 1 February 2013 and had not worked in the State since.
The applicant argued that the Minister had not properly considered a personal letter describing the relationship, had failed to share the underlying tax records, and could not revisit matters known when the residence permission was granted. He also challenged the fairness and reasoning of the decision. The Minister said the review decision was reasonable and that the applicant had not adequately answered concerns about the relationship or the employment documents.
The judge accepted the Department’s evidence that it had not received the applicant’s original personal letter in 2018. A later copy was before the review decision-maker, but referenced attachments were missing. The court found no evidence that the letter had been ignored and said the applicant had been told to ensure relevant material was included in his review application.
The court considered it rational for the Minister to rely on the discrepancy between the spouse’s tax record and the documents submitted in July 2013. It also noted the absence of verifiable detail about the relationship before marriage and about the couple’s married life, finances or shared commitments. The judge accepted that the burden of proving a marriage of convenience initially rested with the Minister, but held that the Minister had discharged it on the information available. The applicant’s failure to provide further evidence did not mean the burden had been improperly shifted to him.
The court rejected the argument that the 2013 permission prevented a later review. It held that the statutory power to revoke was not conditional on proof of an error in the original grant. The proceedings were not moot, despite the applicant having received temporary permission to remain for two years in October 2022, because the marriage finding could affect future efforts to regularise his status.
The application for certiorari was refused. The judge gave an indicative view that the respondent should receive her costs, but listed the matter for 7 February 2023 to hear submissions on costs and final orders. The judgment did not make a final costs order.