The High Court has refused a Bangladeshi man’s application to quash a decision concerning his residence card, finding that the Minister’s conclusions were supported by the evidence and adequately explained.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell on 24 June 2025, concerned a judicial review of the Minister for Justice’s November 2023 review decision. The Minister upheld findings that the applicant had relied on information she considered misleading to obtain a derived residence right and that his marriage to a Portuguese citizen, identified in the judgment as Ms D., was one of convenience for immigration purposes.
The couple married in June 2013, and the applicant received a residence card in January 2014 on the basis of the marriage. After he notified the Minister in December 2018 that the marriage had broken down and Ms D. would not return to Ireland, officials raised concerns about her residence and economic activity in the State. The applicant disputed the concerns and provided submissions and documents, including a declaration from Ms D. stating that the marriage had been genuine but ultimately failed.
The Minister’s review decision found that the applicant had sought to rely on information she knew to be misleading, amounting to an abuse of rights under the 2015 Regulations. It also found the marriage was one of convenience and could be disregarded when deciding immigration matters. The review set aside the first-instance decision to revoke the residence permission and substituted a decision under regulation 27(1) and Article 35 of the Directive. It stated that the applicant had no derived residence entitlement from the outset for future determinations, while setting aside the determination to revoke the card for its 2014–2019 period and temporary permissions.
The applicant argued that the findings were irrational, that the Minister had not identified the allegedly misleading material, and that the reasons were inadequate and failed to engage with relevant evidence. The Minister said the conclusions followed from the sparse corroborating material, Ms D.’s limited recorded economic activity and the lack of objective evidence of shared residence and an ongoing relationship.
The judge said the Minister had given the applicant an opportunity to address the concerns. He found that official records showed little employment activity by Ms D. and that the material did not objectively establish her residence at the Waterford property or the couple’s shared household and relationship after the marriage. The court was not deciding whether the marriage was genuine in a general legal sense; it was reviewing whether the Minister’s decision was lawful under the relevant regulations.
The court refused the application for relief. The judge’s preliminary view was that the respondent should receive the costs, subject to adjudication if the parties could not agree. He listed the matter for final arguments on the form of orders and costs on 8 July 2025.