The High Court has quashed a decision deeming an embassy employee ineligible for naturalisation after finding that the Minister did not appear to assess the other evidence submitted with his application.
Mr Justice Max Barrett said on 4 March 2019 that the Minister could not conclude that the applicant lacked the required reckonable residence simply because he could not provide a letter from his embassy confirming his employment dates.
The applicant, Mehdi Khoddam Vishteh, had applied for naturalisation under section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended. The Minister’s decision of 20 February 2018 said that reckonable residence required a letter from the embassy, signed and dated, confirming his employment dates. As he could not provide it, the Minister deemed him ineligible.
The judgment said the embassy was unwilling to provide the letter, and it was not claimed that the applicant was at fault. The Minister had sought the document under section 17, which permits a naturalisation application to be accompanied by evidence the Minister requires to support it. The court said that asking for the letter was within the Minister’s discretion, but insisting on evidence that had proved impossible to obtain through no apparent fault of the applicant could become arbitrary. The Minister had to consider other evidence available to support the application.
The court said the decision did not appear to show that the other evidence supplied by or for the applicant had been weighed or assessed. It granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision and declared that, in these circumstances, the Minister was bound to consider the totality of available evidence before deciding the section 15 application.
The judgment did not decide whether the applicant qualified for naturalisation. It required the Minister to assess the available evidence when making the decision. The court also rejected a claim that the Minister had breached the duty of candour, finding no evidence that relevant material in his possession had not been disclosed to the court.