The High Court has refused judicial review sought by a married couple from Mauritius over their applications to regularise their immigration status, finding that the permission they sought was not the type covered by section 4(1) of the Immigration Act 2004.
In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2016, Ms Justice O’Regan also ruled that the applications did not suspend the Minister’s entitlement to serve a notice of intention to deport under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999. The court refused relief to quash the Minister’s letter of 8 January 2016 and said the applicants had not established sufficient grounds to quash a decision of 16 December 2015.
The applicants, identified in the judgment as R.G. and S.G., entered Ireland via Belfast in or about August 2013 without a visa or anticipated permission under the 2004 Act. R.G. had previously been in Ireland lawfully from January 2007 until his leave expired in or about February 2012. The couple married in Mauritius in November 2012.
In October 2015, each applied for permission to remain on Stamp 4 conditions under section 4 of the 2004 Act. The Minister’s January 2016 letter said that section did not apply because they had not originally been permitted to land in Ireland under it. The letter said their position would instead be considered under immigration and refugee legislation, and that their representations would be considered before a final decision.
The couple argued that their applications were properly made under section 4(1) and that the Minister had given inadequate reasons for rejecting them. The State argued that section 4 did not apply to people who had entered and remained in Ireland without permission, and that the reasons in the letter were sufficient in those circumstances.
Justice O’Regan concluded that section 4(1) concerns permission connected with entry, rather than the permission the couple sought after being in Ireland without permission for more than two years. She also accepted that the Minister retained executive powers to grant some permissions outside the 2004 Act.
The judge separately considered whether to grant judicial review even if section 4(1) applied. The State cited the applicants’ disregard of immigration requirements and said R.G. was working illegally. The judgment records the applicants’ submission that R.G. had a job and that neither had committed a criminal offence. It also notes Department of Social Protection information indicating that he had worked for 19 weeks in 2013 and full-time in 2014 and 2015.
The court declined relief, citing factors including the applicants’ disregard of the immigration system, their ability to pursue their case from outside Ireland, and the fact that the January letter had not finally determined their position. The judgment does not decide the couple’s ultimate immigration status; it records that their representations remained for consideration before a final decision.