The High Court has refused to order the Minister for Justice to issue decisions on two long-running applications for Irish citizenship, despite waiting periods of 40 and 41 months by the time their cases were heard.
The applicants, identified as MJ and AA, sought judicial review and orders of mandamus, a remedy used to compel a public authority to perform a legal duty. They did not ask the court to direct that citizenship be granted, but argued that they were entitled to decisions on their applications.
MJ, who was born in Pakistan, applied for naturalisation in June 2022. She lives in Ireland with her Irish-Pakistani husband and has an Irish citizen child. AA, whose application was made in 2022, is a recognised refugee and was working as a paramedic. Both had completed Garda vetting, but the Department said separate background checks remained outstanding.
The Minister told both applicants that, once final background checks were received and assuming no concerns arose, their applications would be prioritised and decisions were anticipated within 12 weeks. The Department said some checks may require engagement by An Garda Síochána with agencies outside the State, whose response times are beyond ministerial control.
The applicants argued that this left them with an open-ended timetable and insufficient information about why their cases required further checks. AA also argued that the Minister had unlawfully fettered discretion available in the case of refugees.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley rejected the challenges. He found that the Minister was entitled to await information considered necessary to assess the statutory requirement of good character and had continued to correspond with the applicants and seek updates.
The judge held that the delays were substantial but neither amounted to an actual refusal nor were so unjustified or extreme as to have the same effect as a refusal. He also found that forcing decisions before the checks were complete could result in negative decisions because the Minister would lack the information needed to complete the assessment.
The reliefs sought in both judicial review cases were refused. Costs were left for a later hearing.