The Court of Appeal has dismissed S.S.A.’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision to revoke his residence card. The appeal concerned a judicial review of that decision, not a rehearing of whether the marriage was genuine.
The Minister revoked the card after raising concerns about the appellant’s marriage to an EU citizen. The concerns included the short interval between the spouse’s recorded arrival in Ireland and the couple’s marriage, conflicting information about her employment, and a lack of evidence showing a shared life. The Minister concluded the marriage was one of convenience.
S.S.A. said he met the EU citizen in December 2011 and married her in June 2012. He said they separated in or around January 2018. In response to the Minister’s concerns, he provided a personal letter, a travel history and screenshots of text messages. The Court of Appeal noted that the messages were undated and did not identify who had sent them. It said there was a “complete absence of evidence” of the relationship before and after the marriage, apart from limited employment documents, a utility bill and those messages.
The appellant argued that the Minister had not considered all relevant information, had failed to provide employment records relied on in questioning his documents, and should have held an oral hearing. The Court of Appeal said the oral-hearing issue had not been pleaded and that the appellant had not identified anything an oral hearing could have established that was not addressed in correspondence. It also upheld the High Court’s view that the appellant had not established a reasonable basis to suspect errors in the employment records that would entitle him to inspect them.
The court said the Minister initially bore the burden of proof, but after raising concerns about the marriage, the appellant was expected to provide evidence in response. It held that the Minister’s conclusion was rational on the evidence and rejected the argument that the earlier grant of a residence card prevented the Minister from reviewing the entitlement later.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that the respondent should receive costs because she had been entirely successful. S.S.A. was allowed 14 days to file written submissions opposing costs, with a further 14 days for the respondent to reply.