The High Court has refused a Nigerian national’s application for judicial review of a decision affirming the revocation of his residence card, finding that the review decision was rational and gave adequate reasons.
The applicant, who has lived in Ireland since 2007, received a five-year residence card in 2014 through his marriage to a British national exercising EU free movement rights. After telling the Department of Justice in November 2018 that the couple had separated, he provided documents intended to show that his former wife had lived and exercised EU Treaty rights in Ireland.
The department’s initial decision revoked the card in April 2019. On review, it affirmed that decision in October 2022, concluding that the material submitted to support his former wife’s residence and activities in Ireland was intended to mislead. The review relied, among other matters, on information that she had made no employment or self-employment contributions after 2013 and on her statement in divorce proceedings that she had been habitually resident in England and Wales since at least July 2017.
The applicant sought to quash the review decision, or alternatively the finding that he had knowingly relied on false or misleading information. At the hearing, his counsel accepted that he was no longer entitled to the residence card following the breakdown of the relationship. The challenge focused on the seriousness of the finding and whether the department had adequately explained it. The applicant argued that the tax assessment forms he submitted were genuine and that the department should have checked them with Revenue.
Justice Barry O’Donnell said the review decision did not find that the forms themselves were inauthentic. Rather, it found that the information they contained did not reflect the actual position. The judge said the applicant had been told that the department doubted his former wife was exercising Treaty rights in Ireland and had an opportunity, during the review, to address those concerns.
The court considered the department’s reliance on the divorce papers and information from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, including the absence of PRSI payments and social protection applications. It held that the reasons were sufficient to explain the decision and that the assessment had a solid factual basis. The judge distinguished an earlier case concerning circular reasoning, finding that the conclusion here followed from the evidence about the sufficiency of the material submitted.
The judicial review application was refused. The judge’s provisional view was that the respondent should receive the costs, subject to agreement, and the case was listed for final orders and any costs argument on 7 May 2025. The judgment does not state what final costs order was subsequently made.