The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Mohamed Ahsan to decisions refusing Irish entry visas for his wife and son, finding no legal deficiency in the decisions or the process that produced them.
In a judgment delivered on 31 March 2020, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Minister for Justice and Equality was entitled, on the evidence, to conclude that Mr Ahsan had not proved he was genuinely resident or employed in Ireland and was exercising EU free movement rights. The court held that no basis had been shown to quash the visa appeal refusals or grant any of the other remedies sought.
The visa applications were made in August 2015. They were refused in March 2017, and appeals were rejected in December 2017. The Minister’s decision cited concerns about inconsistencies in evidence concerning the claimed family relationship, Mr Ahsan’s residence and employment, bank activity, and travel between Ireland and the UK. Those concerns and conclusions were the Minister’s findings, as summarised in an affidavit before the court; they were not separate findings made after a full trial of those matters.
Mr Ahsan argued that the Minister applied the wrong standard of proof, failed to disclose information and concerns in time for him to respond, and acted disproportionately and irrationally. He sought orders quashing the visa decisions, damages and legal costs.
The judgment records that Mr Ahsan was representing himself. After a previous High Court judge had refused an adjournment request the day before the hearing, Mr Ahsan renewed the request at the start of the hearing. The court refused it and proceeded. Mr Ahsan said he had nothing substantive to add; after the Minister’s counsel outlined the application, he made brief observations.
Mr Justice Barrett said the Minister could restrict EU free movement rights in cases of abuse of rights. Referring to an earlier judgment in Khan v Minister for Justice and Equality, he emphasised that judicial review is limited: it is not a full appeal, and the court must identify a legal or factual error, unreasonableness or a rights breach in the decision or process. He found no such deficiency here. The court refused all the reliefs sought.