The High Court has dismissed DD’s judicial review challenge to the refusal of her application for Irish citizenship by naturalisation. The court found that the Minister could lawfully apply a policy requiring exceptional and compelling reasons to grant an exemption from the usual residence conditions, and that the decision gave adequate reasons.
DD, who was born in Brazil and is a Brazilian citizen, came to Ireland aged 11 in 2006 and lived here until 2012. Her father later became an Irish citizen, and other paternal relatives were also Irish citizens living in the State. DD returned to Brazil, where she married and had children. She applied for naturalisation in January 2019 on the basis of her Irish associations, although she did not meet the residence conditions in section 15 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
The Minister refused the application on 15 March 2023. The decision acknowledged DD’s Irish associations and history in Ireland, but concluded that she had not given exceptional and compelling reasons for failing to meet the residence requirement. It also noted that she could apply through the standard route if she later met the residence conditions.
DD argued that the Minister had applied an extra-statutory test that had not been disclosed when she applied, gave insufficient reasons and acted irrationally. The Minister said the decision was within her discretion, based on relevant information, and that judicial review could not be used as an appeal on the merits.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin held that section 16 gave the Minister discretion to grant naturalisation even where section 15 conditions were unmet, but did not give applicants a right to an exemption. He found it lawful to consider which residence conditions had not been met and the reasons for that. The Minister’s policy of exceptionality had been published about ten months before the refusal. The court also found no evidence that the policy had fettered the Minister’s discretion or that DD had been prejudiced by lack of notice.
The judge concluded that the decision addressed DD’s circumstances and disclosed its essential rationale. The court was not entitled to substitute its view of the merits for the Minister’s assessment. It therefore dismissed the challenge, finding that DD had not proved the decision was unlawful or inadequately reasoned. The judge gave a preliminary view that the Minister was entitled to costs and invited the parties to agree a draft order; any disagreement, including on costs, was to be addressed in short written submissions within 14 days.