The High Court has refused a Pakistani citizen’s application to quash the revocation of his residence permission and a decision to begin deportation proceedings, finding that the permission granted in 2020 had been procured by fraud.
Mr Justice Barr held that the Minister for Justice could act under Article 35 of the EU Citizens’ Rights Directive, which permits rights under the Directive to be withdrawn in cases of fraud or abuse. The court ruled that the protections governing removal under Article 15 did not prevent the Minister from proceeding under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999.
The applicant had arrived in Ireland in 2015 and sought a residence card as the dependent family member of his brother, a UK citizen. The Minister initially refused the application, finding insufficient evidence of the claimed family relationship, but accepted that the brother was exercising EU Treaty rights in Ireland. A later review granted the applicant permission to remain in July 2020.
The judgment records that the applicant had submitted employment documents relating to a Londis shop that were fraudulent: it was the applicant, using his brother’s identity, who had worked there. In October 2020, he admitted to Garda immigration officers that he had used his brother’s identity and personal public service number. The judgment also recounts that written submissions supporting his 2020 review described the brothers as continuing to live together in Ireland, although the brother had left the State in August 2016.
The Minister revoked the permission on 8 December 2020, concluding that documents about the brothers’ residence and the brother’s exercise of EU rights in Ireland were false and misleading. The court found that the 2020 permission had been based on false claims about the brother’s residence and work at that time. It held that the Minister was entitled to revoke that permission and that the applicant’s earlier claim that his brother had lived and worked in Ireland from 2015 to 2016 did not make the revocation unlawful.
The court also rejected the argument that an additional oral hearing was required. It noted the applicant’s admissions, his opportunity to make written representations before revocation, his failure to seek a review of that decision, and his interview with immigration officers.
The judge treated 27 May 2021 as the effective date of the revocation decision for the purpose of the challenge and extended time to allow the applicant to challenge the 31 May 2021 deportation proposal. The court refused all relief sought. It did not make final orders on costs at this stage: the parties were directed to submit written arguments on the final order and costs within four weeks, and the case was listed for mention on 13 October 2023.