The High Court dismissed a Somali man’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of his Irish naturalisation application, finding no basis to invalidate the Minister’s decision. The court reviewed the refusal on good-character grounds under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956; it did not decide an appeal against the separate refusal of family reunification for his second wife.
The applicant had received refugee status in 2004 and applied for naturalisation in 2007. He had married his first wife in 2002 and later applied for family reunification for her, describing that marriage as religious. He said the marriage broke down around 2008 and that they separated in 2009. In August 2009, he married a second woman in Ethiopia, who was then 16. He applied for family reunification for her in 2012, describing that marriage as traditional and saying it did not meet the formalities of a legal marriage.
The Minister refused naturalisation in August 2014, citing concerns about the applicant’s conduct and veracity regarding his marital status, the underage marriage, and disregard for the family reunification process. The applicant argued that the decision was unreasonable and that the concerns about the second marriage had not been put to him. The judge noted that he had been asked to clarify its legal status and had received a report discussing Ethiopian family law.
The judge said the applicant bore the onus of providing evidence to establish his qualification for naturalisation and had failed to provide important information about the legal status of the marriages. On the limited evidence, the judge considered it more likely than not that the first marriage was legally valid and had not been dissolved before the second marriage. He therefore considered the second marriage more likely than not bigamous and invalid. He added that if the first marriage had not been valid, the second could have become legally effective when the second wife turned 18.
The court held that the Minister could reasonably treat the applicant’s representations as misleading and consider the underage marriage relevant to good character. It also rejected the fair-procedures challenge, finding the applicant had been put on notice of concerns about the second marriage. The judge stated that, for family reunification under section 18 of the Refugee Act 1996, “spouse” means a person in a valid, recognised and subsisting marriage when the application is made.
The court dismissed the judicial review application. It did not quash or otherwise alter the naturalisation refusal.