The High Court has refused a Turkish national employed by Google Ireland permission to bring a judicial review challenge over the rejection of his Irish citizenship application.
Bulent Hicsonmez came to Ireland in March 2019 on a Stamp 1 permission to work for Google Ireland Limited and later obtained Stamp 4 status. He applied for naturalisation on 27 June 2024.
The Minister ultimately found that Hicsonmez had spent 177 days outside Ireland during the preceding year. Under legislation effective from 31 July 2023, an applicant can normally be absent for up to 70 days while still satisfying the requirement for one year’s continuous residence. A further 30 days can be allowed where exceptional circumstances are established.
Hicsonmez had explained that his absences included business travel required by Google, family circumstances, medical and personal reasons, and visits to his wife and son in London. His employer confirmed that regular international travel was necessary for his work.
After reviewing the case, the Minister maintained the refusal in April 2025. The decision stated that, because Hicsonmez had been absent for 177 days, he exceeded even the maximum 100 days permitted where exceptional circumstances apply.
Hicsonmez sought leave for judicial review. He argued, among other things, that the new statutory limits had been applied retrospectively and too rigidly. He also proposed constitutional arguments against the residence provisions.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan rejected those grounds at the preliminary leave stage. She held that the 2023 rules applied prospectively to naturalisation applications made after they came into force. Hicsonmez had no vested right to have a June 2024 application assessed under the earlier administrative policy.
The judge also held that the Minister had no residual discretion to waive the statutory limits once absences exceeded 100 days.
Leave was refused because none of the grounds reached the required threshold of arguability. The court stressed, however, that this was not a final determination of constitutionality and that Hicsonmez could pursue a constitutional challenge in separate plenary proceedings.