The High Court has rejected a challenge by Pakistani national Aamer Shahzad to the refusal of his application for Irish citizenship on good-character grounds.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter held that the Minister was entitled to rely on information that Mr Shahzad’s Latvian spouse, identified as MD, had pleaded guilty in Latvia to involvement in a marriage of convenience with him.
Mr Shahzad entered Ireland in July 2013 and married MD in February 2014. He later applied for EU Treaty Rights residence based on that marriage. That application was refused in November 2014 after questions arose about MD’s previous marriage. The Irish authorities did not at that stage find that Mr Shahzad had entered a marriage of convenience.
Years later, while assessing his naturalisation application, the Minister learned that MD had pleaded guilty in Riga in 2016 to involvement in a marriage of convenience with Mr Shahzad. His solicitors were invited in March 2024 to provide factual context and submissions relevant to his character.
Their response said Mr Shahzad was unaware of the Latvian proceedings and stressed that his later residence had been based on his British-national brother rather than the marriage. It did not deny that the marriage was one of convenience or explain the circumstances in which it was entered.
The Minister concluded that Mr Shahzad had attempted to obtain an immigration advantage through the marriage and that this reflected adversely on his honesty and trustworthiness. Positive factors, including more than 10 years in Ireland, employment and the absence of criminal convictions, were considered but found insufficient to outweigh that concern.
The High Court found no legal error in that approach. It also considered a previously undisclosed Garda report containing an incorrect statement about Mr Shahzad’s residence history, but held that the mistake had not affected the Minister’s reasoning.
Mr Justice Ferriter noted that Mr Shahzad could in principle make a fresh naturalisation application if he now had genuine new evidence explaining the marriage, but the present refusal remained lawful.