The High Court has quashed a decision refusing a Kenyan citizen’s appeal for a long-stay visa to join his Irish citizen wife and sent the appeal back to the Minister for Justice for reconsideration.
In a judgment delivered on 21 March 2023, Mr Justice Alexander Owens found that the decision-maker had wrongly discounted WhatsApp and telephone records in full because they were untranslated. The records could still show the duration and frequency of attempted communications, even though their foreign-language content could not be assessed.
The court’s ruling was limited to that point. It did not decide whether the couple had established a relationship warranting a visa, and it expressed no view on the other grounds raised in the judicial review. The Minister must reconsider the appeal; the court did not direct that a visa be granted.
The couple, identified as MA and YB, met in Kenya in 2012 and married in Mombasa in August 2013. YB made three long-stay visa applications. The latest, submitted on 18 April 2019, was refused on appeal on 30 June 2021. The stated concerns included insufficient evidence of mutual social support and whether YB would become a financial burden on the State. MA received disability allowance and had previously received jobseeker’s allowance. The couple asked the Minister to exercise discretion despite MA’s limited means.
The application included screenshots and message printouts, many in a foreign language, as well as 56 photographs without dates. The Minister’s decision cited difficulties assessing the records, including unidentified participants, phone numbers not shown, poor-quality screenshots and communications that appeared to involve people other than the couple. The judgment also described an unresolved discrepancy in the marriage certificate’s dates: one section recorded signatures on 6 July 2013, while the stated marriage date was 6 August. The decision-maker proceeded on the basis that the marriage was formally valid.
Justice Owens said applicants are responsible for presenting intelligible supporting material and officials need not remind them to provide translations required by guidance. However, where clarification is needed about matters such as participants’ identities, phone numbers, clearer copies or a more coherent presentation, applicants should have an opportunity to respond. The court held that this opportunity should have been given before the records were discounted completely.
The judgment said MA, YB and their advisers can use the reconsideration to provide and explain material that should have accompanied the application. It left the strength of the couple’s relationship, and the remaining judicial-review grounds, unresolved.