The High Court has refused a Bangladeshi man’s application to quash a Minister for Justice decision that his marriage to a Hungarian national was a marriage of convenience and that his EU family residence permission was invalid.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 10 August 2023, Mr Justice Barr rejected the applicant’s two grounds of challenge. He found that the Minister could examine whether the marriage was genuine despite an earlier decision revoking the residence permission for a different reason. He also held that fair procedures did not require an oral hearing or interview in the circumstances.
The applicant had lived in Ireland under various permissions since 2004. He married the Hungarian national, identified in the judgment as Ms GR, in Galway in June 2012 and received a residence card based on her EU Treaty rights to work in Ireland.
In November 2017, the Minister revoked that permission because GR was no longer residing and working in Ireland. The applicant did not seek a review of that decision. In 2019, the Minister raised concerns that the marriage had been one of convenience. The applicant made written representations, including an email and wedding photographs. In August 2019, the Minister revoked the permission on grounds that included a marriage of convenience and alleged false and misleading documentation.
On review in July 2022, the Minister set aside the finding about false and misleading documentation but upheld the marriage of convenience finding. The Minister relied on information that GR was recorded as single and resident in Hungary from 2012, with children, employment and welfare benefits there, as well as concerns about the timing of the relationship and marriage and the limited material submitted about their life together.
The applicant argued that the 2017 revocation meant the Minister had no authority to revoke the permission again. The judge held the decisions addressed different questions: the 2017 decision concerned GR’s EU rights in Ireland, while the later decision concerned whether the marriage had been used to obtain residence rights. He also found no evidence that the applicant had acted to his detriment because of the 2017 decision.
On the hearing issue, the judge accepted that the decision had serious potential consequences and that fair procedures applied. But the applicant had not explained what evidence he could only have provided in an interview. The court found he had been given a fair opportunity to address the Minister’s concerns in writing.
The court refused the relief sought. It directed the parties to provide written submissions within four weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and any other matters. The case was listed for mention on 10 October 2023 to make final orders.