The High Court has dismissed a Nigerian national’s challenge to the refusal of his application for Irish citizenship, while granting him an extension of time to bring the judicial review.
In a judgment delivered on 11 November 2016, Ms Justice Stewart held that the Minister for Justice and Equality had acted reasonably in refusing the application. The court rejected the relief sought by J.O. (Nigeria).
The applicant arrived in Ireland in 2000 and applied for asylum. After marrying an EU national, he obtained a five-year right of residence and withdrew his asylum application. His first naturalisation application, made in 2007, was refused in 2010. A second application, made in 2011, led to a July 2013 communication that the Minister intended to grant it. That intention was withdrawn, and the application was refused in June 2015.
The refusal cited the applicant’s history with UK immigration authorities, incomplete disclosure of that history and unresolved discrepancies in his date of birth. The applicant argued that he had explained the discrepancies, that his criminal convictions for non-payment of fines were minor, and that information behind the refusal was already known when the Minister expressed an intention to grant the application. He also said delays in receiving his immigration file explained why he sought leave for judicial review 23 days beyond the time limit.
The court granted the extension. It accepted that the applicant had explained the delay, that the explanation was supported by evidence and had not been contradicted, and that the Minister had identified no prejudice.
But the court dismissed the substantive grounds. It found that the applicant had not satisfactorily explained why the date “03/08/75” appeared in asylum-related records separate from his marriage certificate. It also noted that both naturalisation applications gave his date of birth as “13/08/75”, while his birth certificate gave “13/09/75”. The court concluded that the Minister’s findings about the discrepancies were reasonable.
The judge said the applicant had not met all the statutory criteria for naturalisation at any point. The 2013 communication was a preliminary expression of intent, not a grant of citizenship, and could be changed after further consideration or new information. The court also found that the applicant had not provided all relevant information before that communication, including a full account of his UK immigration history.
The court considered the criminal background a subsidiary concern in the refusal and rejected the challenge on that ground. It ruled that the Minister could take criminal conduct into account when deciding a naturalisation application. The judgment concluded that the refusal was reasoned, rational and proportionate.