The High Court has refused a Nigerian man’s application for judicial review of a decision refusing him a residence card as the family member of a British citizen. Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled on 29 May 2024 that the grounds permitted for review did not warrant the relief sought. Costs and any consequential matters were left for a mention on 5 June 2024.
The residence-card application was made in October 2018 on the basis that the applicant’s wife was exercising EU Treaty rights through employment in Ireland. The Minister refused it in August 2019, citing concerns that documents submitted in support were false or misleading and that the marriage might be one of convenience. On review in December 2022, the Minister set aside the marriage-of-convenience finding because the evidence was insufficient, but maintained that the applicant had relied on information or documents known to be false or misleading about his wife’s claimed employment. The Minister also found that he had not established that she qualified through employment, involuntary unemployment or sufficient resources.
The applicants argued that the Minister had not objectively established that the employment documents were false, had not contacted the named employer, and had reached a circular conclusion by treating the failure to establish employment as proof of an intention to mislead. They also challenged the consideration of the wife’s claimed involuntary unemployment and resources. The Minister relied on state records indicating no relevant employment payments or company registration and said the applicants had opportunities to address the concerns.
Bradley J held that the judicial review was confined to the grounds on which leave had been granted. He concluded that the Minister had given reasons for refusing the application and had considered the claims of involuntary unemployment and sufficient resources. He also said involuntary unemployment depended on the underlying question of employment, which the Minister had addressed.
The ruling refused the judicial review application. It did not restore the residence-card application or determine the later costs issue, which was listed for mention.