The High Court has dismissed a Pakistani man’s challenge to a review decision that upheld a finding that his marriage to an EU citizen was one of convenience for immigration purposes.
In a judgment delivered on 16 November 2023, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan refused the relief sought and dismissed the judicial review. The challenge concerned the marriage finding in a Minister for Justice decision dated 7 June 2022. The court was not asked to decide a fresh application for residence.
The man had received an EU residence card in 2015 on the basis of the marriage. In 2018, the Minister sought information about the couple’s residence and the EU citizen’s exercise of EU Treaty rights. The Minister later proposed revoking his permission, citing concerns that included the timing of the relationship and marriage, the EU citizen’s recorded employment history, and the limited information provided about their relationship.
The man did not make representations in response to the 2019 proposal to revoke. After the first-instance decision revoked his residence card and found the marriage to be one of convenience, he sought a review. His solicitor challenged the evidence and the legal approach, but the review material did not address the specific concerns about the relationship. The 2022 review upheld the marriage finding but set aside the separate finding that false or misleading documents had been submitted.
The man argued that the Minister had applied the wrong legal test, failed to consider relevant evidence, shifted the burden of proof and denied him fair procedures by not holding an oral hearing. The court rejected those arguments. It found the Minister had applied the test that immigration advantage must be the sole purpose of the marriage, and had considered the evidence and the statutory factors. The man and his spouse had received opportunities to respond to the concerns but had not provided a personal account or material addressing them. On the facts, the absence of an oral hearing did not make the process unfair.
The judge did identify an error in the review decision’s statement that there was “nothing to suggest” the couple had made financial commitments or had joint assets or liabilities. A joint bank account and joint Revenue assessment were some evidence on those matters. However, the court held that the error was not material: the evidence, without more detail about the couple’s finances, was not enough to make the decision unsustainable.
The court concluded that the Minister’s decision had a sufficient basis in the material before her and refused the relief sought. It directed that the case could be listed for mention if the parties could not agree on costs, the form of the order or any consequential matter.