The High Court has quashed a Minister for Justice review decision that upheld the revocation of a Pakistani man’s residence permission, finding that the review officer failed to properly consider his submissions and give adequate reasons for rejecting them.
In a judgment delivered on 21 October 2022, Ms Justice Bolger ordered certiorari quashing the decision and remitted the matter to the Minister for fresh consideration. The court did not decide whether the applicant’s marriage was genuine or whether he had submitted false or misleading information.
The Minister’s review had affirmed an earlier decision revoking the man’s residence card. That decision found his marriage to a Latvian EU citizen was one of convenience and that documents submitted in support of his residence application were false and misleading. The Minister also argued that the applicant had not properly engaged with the review process and had failed to notify the authorities of a change in his spouse’s circumstances.
The applicant challenged the review decision, saying it wrongly stated that he had never disputed the marriage-of-convenience finding or the allegation about the documents. He had made written submissions through his solicitors, sent a personal letter and supplied supporting documents, including employment and Revenue records and wedding photographs.
Justice Bolger found that the review decision contained that acknowledged error, as well as incorrect dates for an earlier decision and an application. Taken together, the errors raised concerns about whether the review officer had properly considered the material submitted. The court also rejected the Minister’s attempt to explain the error in court proceedings as a retrospective creation of reasons.
The judge said the review decision did not address relevant submissions, including the applicant’s account of his spouse’s residence and work in Ireland in 2014 and 2015, or identify which documents were considered false and why. The decision therefore did not show proper engagement with the applicant’s case or provide transparent, adequate reasons.
The court accepted that the applicant’s engagement was imperfect and that he had not supplied all the relationship and immigration-history information requested by the Minister. But it found he had engaged sufficiently for the court to reject the Minister’s request to withhold relief on that basis. It also found no basis to refuse relief because of the alleged breach of the notification rules.
The judgment records an indicative view that the applicant should receive his costs. The matter was listed for a further mention on 4 November 2022 so the parties could make submissions on costs and the final orders.