The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge by an Irish citizen and her Ethiopian husband to the Minister for Justice’s refusal of his spouse visa appeal.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled that the Minister had lawfully considered the evidence and the couple’s rights before upholding the refusal. The court was reviewing the lawfulness of the decision, not hearing an appeal on the visa’s merits.
The couple married in a ceremony over video call on 2 March 2019, according to the judgment. The sponsor travelled to Ethiopia in April 2019, where they held a family blessing and a wedding celebration. Her husband applied for a long-stay “join family” visa in March 2021. The application was refused in May 2021, and the appeal was refused on 17 November 2021.
The sponsor’s solicitors accepted that she did not meet the financial criteria in the State’s family reunification policy. They asked the Minister to use the policy’s discretion for exceptional circumstances. The appeal decision cited concerns about the sponsor’s finances and potential costs to public funds and resources. It also found that the application lacked sufficient evidence of the relationship and routine communication, and evidence that the sponsor financially supported her husband.
The judge said the first refusal had identified evidential gaps, but no further relationship or financial evidence was provided with the appeal. The call records submitted mostly showed missed calls over a limited period. The judgment also noted that the sponsor’s account of near-daily communication was not reflected in those records. The court held that it was open to the Minister to find the evidence insufficient.
The applicants argued that the refusal was irrational and disproportionate, that the Minister had applied the policy inflexibly, and that the decision breached constitutional family rights and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge rejected those arguments, finding that the Minister had considered the marriage, the impact on the couple, the financial material and the possibility of an exception. He said the court could not substitute its view for a lawful assessment by the Minister.
The judgment records that the applicants had not challenged the Minister’s conclusion that exceptional or humanitarian circumstances warranting a discretionary visa had not been demonstrated. It also rejected their preliminary application to strike out the Minister’s statement of opposition.
The court dismissed the judicial review claim. It did not quash the visa appeal refusal or order that a visa be granted. The judge gave a preliminary view that costs should follow the event and invited short written submissions within 14 days if there was a dispute about costs or the form of the final order.