The High Court has refused a Pakistani national’s application to quash the Minister for Justice’s decision not to renew his Stamp 4 permission to remain in Ireland. The court treated an earlier finding that he had obtained an EU residence card through a marriage of convenience as valid and subsisting. It did not decide a challenge to that 2019 finding, which was outside the proceedings and out of time.
The applicant arrived in Ireland on student permission in December 2006 and married a Latvian national in June 2009. He received a five-year residence card under EU Treaty Rights. After the marriage ended and his former wife was divorced in Latvia in 2013, the Minister refused to let him retain the card, but granted him discretionary Stamp 4 permission. That permission was renewed on several occasions.
In September 2019, following notice of proposed revocation and representations from the applicant, the Minister found that the marriage had been one of convenience and revoked the residence card. The applicant was told that his separate Stamp 4 permission would be considered separately and that he could seek a review. He did not seek one or bring judicial review proceedings against that decision. The High Court noted that the 2019 decision was a significant decision, not merely a procedural step.
The Minister later relied on that finding when refusing further Stamp 4 permission in February 2021. The applicant argued that the Minister had already known relevant facts when granting discretionary permission, had reconsidered settled matters, and had not fairly assessed his representations. He also disputed the marriage-of-convenience finding. The Minister argued that the 2019 decision could not be challenged indirectly in proceedings about the 2021 refusal.
Ms Justice Bolger held that the applicant could not use the present case to mount a collateral attack on the September 2019 decision or its basis. She approached the challenge to the February 2021 decision on the footing that the earlier finding stood. She also said, in case that approach was wrong, that the reasoning behind the 2019 finding had been fair and lawful and based on available evidence, including evidence the applicant had an opportunity to address.
The judge held that the Minister was entitled to take the earlier finding and the applicant’s conduct into account when exercising her discretion over further permission. Res judicata did not prevent reliance on the administrative finding; alternatively, the finding had not been reopened. The court refused certiorari of the February 2021 decision.
The court did not make a final costs order at this stage. Its indicative view was that the Minister was entitled to costs, and the matter was listed for mention on 20 July 2022 for further submissions on costs and final orders. The judgment does not state the result of that later mention.